Competing discourses on REDD+: Global debates versus the first Indian REDD+ project

Marjanneke J. Vijge

Forest Policy and Economics, 2015, vol. 56, issue C, 38-47

Abstract: This article analyzes three of the most contentious scholarly and political debates regarding REDD+, focusing on 1) what REDD+ should achieve; 2) who should monitor REDD+ outcomes; and 3) how REDD+ should be financed. In analyzing these, the article conceptualizes three sets of storylines and assesses which of the identified storylines resonate in the first Indian REDD+ project, focusing on both stakeholders' views and project design. The three identified questions do not give rise to contentious debates among stakeholders of the REDD+ project. Contrasting views on REDD+ found in scholarly and political debates – such as carbon versus non-carbon objectives, authority of technical experts versus local communities, and market versus fund-based approaches – are not prevalent among project stakeholders, who believe that different approaches to REDD+ can be combined and can even reinforce each other. Project stakeholders prefer non-carbon benefits as the project's main objective to be monitored jointly by experts and local communities, and favor a mix of fund- and market-based approaches. This is also reflected in the project design. The conclusion reflects on the insights that the multi-level discourse analysis in this article generated, including for REDD+ in general.

Keywords: REDD+; India; Discourse analysis; Co-benefits; MRV; Market-based approach (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2015
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (6)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934115000581
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:forpol:v:56:y:2015:i:c:p:38-47

DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.03.009

Access Statistics for this article

Forest Policy and Economics is currently edited by M. Krott

More articles in Forest Policy and Economics from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().