Norm Entrepreneurs Sidestep REDD+ in Pursuit of Just and Sustainable Forest Governance

Abstract

This paper explores the dissonance between conceptions of justice among forest-adjacent communities and their representation in global forest policies, a persistent barrier to delivering just sustainability. We empirically track justice claims of rural villagers upwards through specific intermediaries or 'justice brokers': civil society, state, or private sector actors operating at local to international levels, who navigate different institutions to advance various social and ecological interests. We draw on interviews with 16 intermediaries in each of Nepal and Uganda and find that recognition of local values and practices such as customary tenure systems are key justice concerns of forest-adjacent communities in each country. However, intermediaries perceive a low likelihood of advancing those claims through national or international climate and forest policy debates, such as REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation), in large part because deliberations on justice are subordinated to concerns such as carbon accounting and arrangements for distributing monetary benefits. This suggests these policy processes must be modified to offer potential for transformational pathways. Intermediaries who pursued recognition justice issues developed innovative tactics in alternative forums. These 'norm entrepreneurs' adopted a suite of complementary strategies to attain influence, including: (1) formation of associations at the grassroots level; (2) media and advocacy campaigns through national coalitions to reach powerful international donors, and; (3) drawing on international support networks for advice, training and to influence national government. In both Uganda and Nepal these strategies were evidenced to enhance recognition for local values and practices.

The forest frontier in the Global South: Climate change policies and the promise of development and equity

“…While we saw differences in the outcomes of these interventions, the overall tendency is that the forest frontiers continue to reproduce inequality, loss of forest, particularly old-growth forests, and maladaptation to the disadvantage of those directly living in or depending on forests-in spite of, and in part because of, climate policy interventions. These findings are corroborated by observations in the wider literature on environmental and climate policy and its outcomes (Dawson et al 2018;Martin et al 2020), which also led to questioning the overall contemporary framing of environmental policy and science with its lack of attention to justice, democracy, and inequality (Biermann 2021). What is missing in all cases is a prioritised and powerful interest in keeping trees and forest standing, to the benefit of local populations as an explicit part of just transitions with the aim to reduce existing inequalities, rather than as an afterthought or a desirable side-effect as part of complex-and often dangerous-net calculations (Delabre 2020;Carton et al 2020).…”

“…A prominent and persistent myth is the assumption that states and government bureaucracies manage the forest autonomously from large-scale economic interests driving deforestation, with an intention to achieve what is best for their country’s society. This assumed autonomy of state actors has been questioned for the case of REDD+ in an investigation of the politics of deforestation in the tropics (Di Gregorio et al 2012 ). Another popular myth is related to smallholders and the promise that ‘participation’ in global forest governance will solve deforestation, which ignores power imbalances and implies that local people’s land-use practices are the main cause of the problem (Skutsch and Turnhout 2020 ).…”

“…Forest-based climate change adaptation and mitigation are the most recent additions to this long list of interests and ideas over forests and forest lands in the Global South, with carbon and non-carbon benefits as tangible and intangible commodities. Within the literature, there is concern that with the implementation of new forest and climate governance tools, unsustainable exploitation and associated inequalities will simply continue or even be aggravated (Lund et al 2017 ; Dawson et al 2018 ), despite ambitions and commitments to the contrary (see, for example, the New York Declaration of Forests, the Sustainable Development Goals, and the Paris Agreement). As scholars argue, political transformational change is required for forest and climate governance to break with a history of deforestation, failed adaptation, and unequal development (Brockhaus and Angelsen 2012 ; Scoones et al 2015 ; Temper et al 2018 ; Martin et al 2020 ).…”

Indigenous Participation and the Incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge and Perspectives in Global Environmental Governance Forums: a Systematic Review

“…This need for various types of networks or groups was mentioned in 50 of the 76 papers reviewed (e.g., Aguilar-Stoen, 2017;Belfer et al, 2019;Brosius, 2004;Chen & Gilmore, 2015;Comberti et al, 2019;Hill et al, 2020;Kuyper et al, 2017;Martello, 2008;Oviedo & Pyschkarsky, 2012;Vierros et al, 2020). Transnational organizing and coalitions between Indigenous peoples have opened up space for Indigenous peoples to influence both national, regional, and global agendas and has been identified as critical for developing further influence and agency in GEG decision-making with examples provided in the reviewed papers within UNFCCC and REDD regimes (Adeyeye et al, 2019;Aguilar-Stoen, 2017;Ciplet, 2014;Dawson et al, 2018;Denton, 2017;Doolittle, 2010;Shroeder, 2010;Wallbott, 2014).…”

Inclusion in Global Environmental Governance: Sustained Access, Engagement and Influence in Decisive Spaces

“…For example, in the Climate Convention, increased stakeholder participation still limited inclusion of Indigenous peoples [13,35]. While the UN Declaration on Indigenous peoples recognizes them as rights-holders [59], their participation in the negotiations of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) mechanism remains indirect and weak [13,60]. Although REDD programs create incentives for changing use of forest resources, the outcomes of the program did not incorporate Indigenous peoples' views and concerns [13], producing regulatory outcomes with questionable legitimacy [19,61], and less effective implementation [9,24,38].…”