IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v38y2020i1p134-152.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who should be governed to reduce deforestation and how? Multiple governmentalities at the REDD+ negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • Mattias Hjort

Abstract

Drawing on recent multiple governmentality literature, this article analyses the REDD+ negotiations to interrogate who the scheme is likely to govern and how. Two arguments are advanced. First, REDD+ is likely to target local forest users at the expense of both corporate and international drivers of deforestation. This will reduce the effectiveness of the scheme and invite leakage issues. In elucidating the ultimately rejected strategies for addressing international drivers now hidden in neat negotiation outcomes, this article opens a space for considering how the scheme could move beyond a predominant focus on local forest users. Second, targeted forest users are likely to be governed by a combination of neoliberal and disciplinary technologies. REDD+ will seek to ‘improve’ their conduct through a three-staged process involving education, self-reflection and rewards for carbon sequestration. An alternative governmentality associated with local forest users’ claims to decide on REDD+ implementation and governance, on the other hand, met with resistance and ultimately received no protection in the adopted REDD+ safeguards. Moreover, the formulation of the safeguards could undermine legitimacy and forest stewardship in REDD+ projects. By linking the possibility of such issues to the negotiation outcomes, this article demonstrates necessary changes to the scheme.

Suggested Citation

  • Mattias Hjort, 2020. "Who should be governed to reduce deforestation and how? Multiple governmentalities at the REDD+ negotiations," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 38(1), pages 134-152, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:38:y:2020:i:1:p:134-152
    DOI: 10.1177/2399654419837298
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2399654419837298
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2399654419837298?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fred Gale & Francisco Ascui & Heather Lovell, 2017. "Sensing Reality? New Monitoring Technologies for Global Sustainability Standards," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 17(2), pages 65-83, May.
    2. Sunderlin, William D. & Larson, Anne M. & Duchelle, Amy E. & Resosudarmo, Ida Aju Pradnja & Huynh, Thu Ba & Awono, Abdon & Dokken, Therese, 2014. "How are REDD+ Proponents Addressing Tenure Problems? Evidence from Brazil, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, and Vietnam," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 37-52.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tironi, Martín & Rivera Lisboa, Diego Ignacio, 2023. "Artificial intelligence in the new forms of environmental governance in the Chilean State: Towards an eco-algorithmic governance," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    2. Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy & Bredahl Jacobsen, Jette & Poudyal, Mahesh & Rasoamanana, Alexandra & Hockley, Neal, 2018. "Estimating welfare impacts where property rights are contested: methodological and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 71-83.
    3. Veronesi, Marcella & Reutemann, Tim & Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2015. "Designing REDD+ schemes when forest users are not forest landowners: Evidence from a survey-based experiment in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 46-57.
    4. Nhem, Sareth & Lee, Young Jin & Phin, Sopheap, 2017. "Sustainable management of forest in view of media attention to REDD+ policy, opportunity and impact in Cambodia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P1), pages 10-21.
    5. Jagger, Pamela, 2014. "Confusion vs. clarity: Property rights and forest use in Uganda," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 32-41.
    6. Gakou-Kakeu, Josiane & Di Gregorio, Monica & Paavola, Jouni & Sonwa, Denis Jean, 2022. "REDD+ policy implementation and institutional interplay: Evidence from three pilot projects in Cameroon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    7. Sanders, Anna J.P. & Ford, Rebecca M. & Keenan, Rodney J. & Larson, Anne M., 2020. "Learning through practice? Learning from the REDD+ demonstration project, Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership (KFCP) in Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    8. Imbrogiano, Jean-Pierre & Steiner, Bodo & Mori Junior, Renzo & Sturman, Kathryn, 2023. "What enables metals ‘being’ ‘responsible’? An exploratory study on the enabling of organizational identity claims through a new sustainability standard," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    9. Amy W. Ando & Titus O. Awokuse & Nathan W. Chan & Jimena González-Ramírez & Sumeet Gulati & Matthew G. Interis & Sarah Jacobson & Dale T. Manning & Samuel Stolper, 2024. "Environmental and Natural Resource Economics and Systemic Racism," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(1), pages 143-164.
    10. Erik Lilleskov & Kevin McCullough & Kristell Hergoualc’h & Dennis Castillo Torres & Rodney Chimner & Daniel Murdiyarso & Randy Kolka & Laura Bourgeau-Chavez & John Hribljan & Jhon Aguila Pasquel & Cra, 2019. "Is Indonesian peatland loss a cautionary tale for Peru? A two-country comparison of the magnitude and causes of tropical peatland degradation," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 591-623, April.
    11. Fontana, Lorenza B. & Grugel, Jean, 2016. "The Politics of Indigenous Participation Through “Free Prior Informed Consent”: Reflections from the Bolivian Case," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 249-261.
    12. Sunderlin, William D. & de Sassi, Claudio & Sills, Erin O. & Duchelle, Amy E. & Larson, Anne M. & Resosudarmo, Ida Aju Pradnja & Awono, Abdon & Kweka, Demetrius Leo & Huynh, Thu Ba, 2018. "Creating an appropriate tenure foundation for REDD+: The record to date and prospects for the future," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 376-392.
    13. Elena Lazos-Chavero & Paula Meli & Consuelo Bonfil, 2021. "Vulnerabilities and Threats to Natural Forest Regrowth: Land Tenure Reform, Land Markets, Pasturelands, Plantations, and Urbanization in Indigenous Communities in Mexico," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-23, December.
    14. Marianna Cavallo & Alicia Bugeja Said & José A. Pérez Agúndez, 2023. "Who Is in and Who Is out in Ocean Economies Development?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-17, February.
    15. Francisco Ascui & Theodor F. Cojoianu, 2019. "Implementing natural capital credit risk assessment in agricultural lending," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(6), pages 1234-1249, September.
    16. Neudert, Regina & Olschofsky, Konstantin & Kübler, Daniel & Prill, Laura & Köhl, Michael & Wätzold, Frank, 2018. "Opportunity costs of conserving a dry tropical forest under REDD+: The case of the spiny dry forest in southwestern Madagascar," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 102-114.
    17. Marie-Christine Cormier-Salem, 2017. "Let the Women Harvest the Mangrove. Carbon Policy, and Environmental Injustice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-18, August.
    18. Overman, Han & Cummings, Anthony R. & Luzar, Jeffrey B. & Fragoso, Jose M.V., 2019. "National REDD+ outcompetes gold and logging: The potential of cleaning profit chains," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 16-26.
    19. Naughton-Treves, Lisa & Wendland, Kelly, 2014. "Land Tenure and Tropical Forest Carbon Management," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 1-6.
    20. World Bank, 2019. "Securing Forest Tenure Rights for Rural Development," World Bank Publications - Reports 34183, The World Bank Group.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:38:y:2020:i:1:p:134-152. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.