Resources and Rules of the Game: Participation of  Civil Society in REDD+ and FLEGT‐VPA Processes in  Lao PDR

Mustalahti, Irmeli; Cramm, Mathias; Ramcilovic‐Suominen, Sabaheta; Tegegne, Yitagesu Tekle

doi:10.3390/f8020050

Cited by 28 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 34 publications

(41 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A number of publications have analysed possibilities for REDD+ and FLEGT to complement or conflict with one another (Broekhoven, 2014;Dooley and Ozinga, 2011;Haijar, 2014;Phúc et al, 2012;Späth, 2015;Ochieng et al, 2013;Sikor and To, 2014). For example, Mustalahti et al (2017) examined civil society participation in REDD+ and FLEGT in Lao PDR, suggesting the vital importance of participation to these processes, but as Mustalahti et al (2017) point out, REDD+ and FLEGT share a fundamental concern for forest degradation, deforestation, and emphasise the governance issues that underpin these issues. There are, however, several governance features of these arrangements that make them distinct from one another.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Civil society participation in REDD+ and FLEGT processes: Case study analysis from Cameroon, Ghana, Liberia and the Republic of Congo

Satyal

2018

Forest Policy and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) and FLEGT (Forest LawEnforcement, Governance and Trade) are two initiatives with roots at an international scale that aim to influence national and local level forest governance. This paper looks to understand how the breadth and depth of participation of different types of actors, most particularly civil society, compares between these initiatives and in what ways the structure of the governance arrangement and/or the focus of commodities may influence this participation. The paper presents findings from an assessment study on the dynamics of participation of civil society actors in REDD+ and FLEGT processes in four countries of Central and Western Africa: Cameroon, Ghana, Liberia and the Republic of Congo. Building on key civil society participation literature, a questionnaire tool was developed and applied in these countries. The analysis is drawn from interviews based on the questionnaire tool, some in-depth interviews and secondary research. The study finds that there is a growing recognition of civil society participation in national policy making of forest governance in the four countries, and a majority of the civil society organisations are participating in REDD+ and FLEGT processes. The quality and degree of their participation (that can range from informing to empowering) however, varies between FLEGT and REDD+ (i.e. FLEGT being more accommodative than REDD+), among a diversity of these actors and the studied countries. The difference in participation between REDD+ and FLEGT is related to the design of these two processes, the general lack of time and financial investment and the technical nature of REDD+ consultations. Moreover, FLEGT has been more inclusive and participatory right from the beginning whereas participatory spaces are generally lacking in REDD+ process, most particularly in its initial stages. As REDD+ and FLEGT processes are being consolidated in these countries and worldwide, this paper provides several avenues of interventions needed to address gaps on participation, such as strengthening participatory platforms, addressing representation deficit for community groups and focusing on capacity building of civil society actors.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Civil society participation in REDD+ and FLEGT processes: Case study analysis from Cameroon, Ghana, Liberia and the Republic of Congo

Satyal

2018

Forest Policy and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…REDD+'s failure globally to date has been variously attributed to all of the above factors (e.g. Pham et al 2014;Mustalahti et al 2017;Sanders et al 2017;Enrici et al 2019).…”

Section: Policy Failure?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Jamison, 2001; Keeley and Scoones, 1999, 2014) and REDD+ literatures (e.g. Lund et al., 2017; Massarella et al., 2018; Mustalahti et al., 2017; Sanders et al., 2017). In linking REDD+ policy failure to elite attempts to both manipulate representations of success and shield the policy process from unwanted scrutiny, the article nevertheless provides some novel contributions to debates on national REDD+ modalities.…”

Section: Reducing Emissions From Deforestation and Forest Degradationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Following REDD+: Elite agendas, political temporalities, and the politics of environmental policy failure in Guyana

Hook

2019

Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article follows the journey of Guyana’s Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) programme, from its promising emergence in 2009 as an ambitious, Norway-funded scheme worth US$250m to its near-abandonment by all actors ten years later. It is based on primary fieldwork conducted in Guyana in 2016 and 2017 and a deep review of the theoretical and empirical literature on REDD+ policy processes and the Norway–Guyana agreement. The article shows how, contrary to the mainstream understanding of environmental policy as a disinterested search for a rational, scientific solution, decisions governing REDD+ policy in Guyana were rather shaped throughout by the political objectives and calculations of a small number of opportunistic elite actors. It further shows how even the modest incarnation of REDD+ in Guyana (which ended up resembling more of a results-based aid programme than a Payment for Ecosystem Services scheme) was continually affected by political factors beyond the control of policy managers. These included fluctuations in the world gold price that led to an increase in mining activity and deforestation, the departure of a key international investor which caused the collapse of the flagship REDD+-funded Amaila Falls hydropower project, and legislative gridlock in Guyana generated by a hung Parliament. While not suggesting that REDD+ (or similar Payment for Ecosystem Services schemes) can never work, the article nonetheless illustrates the ways in which political objectives and unforeseen events can overwhelm substantive policy efforts towards fighting climate change. The findings also illustrate the dangers of prioritizing short-term ‘success stories’ over longer-term and more consultative environmental policy processes.

show abstract

“…Laos was one of the first 14 countries to become a REDD+ country participant under the FCPF in July 2008, and its REDD Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP) grant was accepted in late 2010 (DoF 2010). The REDD+ activities of Laos are also funded by the Forest Investment Program (FIP), the UN-REDD Program and various other bilateral and multilateral donor initiatives (Koch 2017;Mustalahti et al 2017;Vongvisouk et al 2016). Due to ministerial and sectoral rearrangements in amongst others the forestry sector, it was not until 2014 that the first Readiness Grant of US$3.6 million was signed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

REDD+ as a tool for state territorialization: managing forests and people in Laos

Ramcilovik-Suominen

2019

Journal of Political Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyzes the Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) policy process, through the lens of state territorialization in the Lao People's Democratic Republic (Laos). It explores the motivations, mechanisms and strategies that drive REDD+ policy design and its implementation in the country. The provinces selected for REDD+ activities within the Emission Reduction (ER) Program, as well as the various REDD+ pilot projects are located in the north, where shifting cultivation is widespread, but where the potential for REDD+ to address deforestation and carbon sequestration is not optimal. The provinces with high carbon sequestration potential and high rates of deforestation are not part of the ER Program due to development investment projects and political sensitivity in those areas. REDD+ acts as a tool for state territorialization in a number of ways, including: (i) by targeting the areas where shifting cultivation is widely practiced, aiming to regulate village forest uses and users, (ii) by protecting state political, economic and development goals and strategies, by leaving the profitable large-scale drivers of deforestation unaddressed, including large-scale land investments, hydropower, infrastructure and mining development, and finally (iii) by providing additional motives, tools and discourses for state territorialization, including funding, technologies and the narratives that support it. I highlight, however, that REDD+ is not the sole reason for state territorial politics and practices. Rather, the instrument is layered over previous histories of colonial and post-colonial territorialization processes, continuing a similar logic, rhetoric and management practices. The REDD+ design and its technical orientation, however, appear to provide additional motives, as well as a new pool of resources, technical assistance and modern technologies that intensify the practice and politics of state territoriality in Laos.Keywords: Laos, REDD+, state territorialization, forest politics, drivers of deforestation

show abstract

Resources and Rules of the Game: Participation of Civil Society in REDD+ and FLEGT‐VPA Processes in Lao PDR

Cited by 28 publications

References 34 publications

Civil society participation in REDD+ and FLEGT processes: Case study analysis from Cameroon, Ghana, Liberia and the Republic of Congo

Civil society participation in REDD+ and FLEGT processes: Case study analysis from Cameroon, Ghana, Liberia and the Republic of Congo

Following REDD+: Elite agendas, political temporalities, and the politics of environmental policy failure in Guyana

REDD+ as a tool for state territorialization: managing forests and people in Laos

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About