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.
AgrawalA (2005)
Environmentality: Community, intimate government, and the making of environmental subjects in Kumaon, India. Current Anthropology46(2): 161–191.
2.
AngelsenABrockhausMSunderlinWD, et al. (eds) (2012) Analysing REDD+: Challenges and Choices.
Bogor:
CIFOR.
3.
Climate Action Network International (CAN) (2009) Views on issues relating to indigenous peoples [sic] and local communities for the development and application of methodologies. Available at: http://unfccc.int/3689.php (accessed 13 March 2018).
4.
Climate Action Network International (CAN) (2012) Submission on how to address drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. Available at: http://unfccc.int/3689.php (accessed 13 March 2018).
5.
Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin (COICA) (2009) SBSTA submission. Available at: http://unfccc.int/3689.php (accessed 13 February 2016).
6.
DeanM (2010) Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. 2nd ed.
London:
SAGE.
7.
DeathC (2010)
Counter-conducts: A Foucauldian analytics of protest. Social Movement Studies9(3): 235–251.
8.
DescheneauPPatersonM (2011)
Between desire and routine: Assembling environment and finance in carbon markets. Antipode43(3): 662–681.
9.
DwyerMBIngallsM (2015) REDD+ at the Crossroads: Choices and Tradeoffs for 2015–2020 in Laos. CIFOR working paper no. 179.
Bogor:
CIFOR.
10.
Ecosystem Climate Alliance (ECA) (2009) Position on negotiating text for REDD. Available at: http://unfccc.int/3689.php (accessed 13 March 2018).
11.
Ecosystem Climate Alliance (ECA) (2011) REDD+ methodological guidance for activities relating to the drivers of deforestation and degradation and relevant issues. Available at: http://unfccc.int/3689.php (accessed 13 March 2018).
12.
EliaschJ (2008) Climate Change: Financing Global Forests.
London:
UK Office of Climate Change.
13.
FERN and Rainforest Foundation UK (RFUK) (2009) Views on issues relating to indigenous peoples [sic] and local communities for the development and application of methodologies. Available at: http://unfccc.int/3689.php (accessed 13 March 2018).
14.
FletcherR (2010)
Neoliberal environmentality: Towards a poststructuralist political ecology of the conservation debate. Conservation and Society8(3): 171–181.
Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) (2013) World Bank Safeguard Policies and the UNFCCC REDD+ Safeguards. FMT Note CF-2013-3.
Washington, DC:
World Bank.
17.
Forest Peoples Programme (FPP) (2009) Views on issues relating to indigenous peoples [sic] and local communities for the development and application of methodologies. Available at: http://unfccc.int/3689.php (accessed 13 March 2018).
18.
FoucaultM (1990) The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1: An Introduction.
New York:
Vintage Books.
19.
FoucaultM (1991a) Governmentality. In: BurchellGGordonCMillerP (eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality.
Chicago, IL:
The University of Chicago Press, pp. 87–104.
20.
FoucaultM (1991b) Questions of method. In: BurchellGGordonCMillerP (eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality.
Chicago, IL:
The University of Chicago Press, pp. 73–86.
21.
FoucaultM (2008) The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the College de France 1978–1979. Edited by M Senellart and translated by G Burchell.
Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
22.
GaleFAscuiFLovellH (2017)
Sensing reality? New monitoring technologies for global sustainability standards. Global Environmental Politics17(2): 65–83.
23.
Global Forest Coalition (GFC) (2007) Potential policy approaches and positive incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation in developing countries. Available at: http://unfccc.int/3689.php (accessed 13 March 2018).
24.
GuptaALövbrandETurnhoutE, et al. (2012)
In pursuit of carbon accountability: The politics of REDD+ measuring, reporting and verification systems. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability4(6): 726–731.
25.
HowellS (2014) ‘No
rights-no REDD’: Some implications of a turn towards co-benefits. Forum for Development Studies41(2): 253–272.
26.
International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Climate Change (IIPFCC) (2009) Submission to SBSTA on item 11 of FCCC/SBSTA/2008/L.23. Available at: http://unfccc.int/3689.php (accessed 13 March 2018).
27.
International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation (ITC) (2009) Forest biomass assessment in support of REDD by indigenous people [sic] and local communities. Available at: http://unfccc.int/3689.php (accessed 13 January 2015).
28.
JaggerPLawlorKBrockhausM, et al. (2012) REDD+ safeguards in national policy discourse and pilot projects. In: AngelsenA, et al. (eds) Analysing REDD+ Challenges and Choices.
Bogor:
CIFOR, pp.301–316.
29.
José PachaM (2015) Community-Based Monitoring, Reporting and Verification Know-How: Sharing Knowledge from Practice. WWF Report, Forest and Climate Programme.
Gland:
WWF.
30.
KissingerGHeroldMDe SyV (2012) Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation. A Synthesis Report for REDD+ Policymakers.
Vancouver:
Lexeme Consulting.
31.
LarsonAMBrockhausMSunderlinWD, et al. (2013)
Land tenure and REDD+: The good, the bad and the ugly. Global Environmental Change23: 678–689.
32.
LemosMCAgrawalA (2006)
Environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources31: 297–325.
33.
LockwoodMDavidsonJCurtisA, et al. (2010)
Governance principles for natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources23: 986–1001.
34.
LövbrandEStrippleJ (2011)
Making climate change governable: Accounting for carbon as sinks, credits and personal budgets. Critical Policy Studies5(2): 187–200.
35.
LövbrandEStrippleJ (2012)
Disrupting the public-private distinction: Excavating the government of carbon markets post-Copenhagen. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy30(4): 658–674.
36.
LövbrandEStrippleJWimanB (2009)
Earth system governmentality: Reflections on science in the anthropocene. Global Environmental Change19(1): 7–13.
37.
LovellH (2014) Measuring forest carbon. In: StrippleJBulkeleyH (eds) Governing the Climate: New Approaches to Rationality, Power and Politics.
New York:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 175–196.
38.
LovellHLivermanD (2010)
Understanding carbon offset technologies. New Political Economy15(2): 255–273.
39.
LovellHMacKenzieD (2011)
Accounting for carbon: The role of accounting professional organisations in governing climate change. Antipode43: 704–730.
40.
McGregorAChalliesEHowsonP, et al. (2015)
Beyond carbon, more than forest? REDD+ governmentality in Indonesia. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space47: 138–155.
41.
MertzO (2009)
Trends in shifting cultivation and the REDD mechanism. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability1: 156–160.
42.
OelsA (2005)
Rendering climate change governable: From biopower to advanced liberal government?Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning7(3): 185–207.
43.
PatersonMStrippleJ (2010)
My space: Governing individuals’ carbon emissions. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space28: 341–362.
Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI) (2016) Community Rights and Tenure in Country Emission Reduction Programs: Status and Risks for the FCPF Carbon Fund.
Washington, DC:
RRI.
46.
SalviniGHeroldMDe SyV, et al. (2014)
How countries link REDD+ interventions to drivers in their readiness plans: Implications for monitoring systems. Environmental Research Letters9: 074004.
47.
SloanS (2014)
Indonesia’s moratorium on new forest licenses: An update. Land Use Policy38: 37–40.
48.
StephanB (2012)
Bringing discourse to the market: The commodification of avoided deforestation. Environmental Politics21(4): 621–639.
49.
StephanB (2013) Governing the forest frontier: A governmentality analysis of REDD+. In: Not seeing the forest for the carbon in the trees? The role of fighting tropical deforestation in global climate governance. PhD Thesis, Hamburg University, Germany.
50.
SternN (2006) Review on the Economics of Climate Change.
London:
HM Treasury.
51.
SunderlinWDLarsonAMDuchelleAE, et al. (2014)
How are REDD+ proponents addressing tenure problems? Evidence from Brazil, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, and Vietnam. World Development55: 37–52.
UNFCCC (2015b) UNFCCC documents in relation to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries. Available at: http://unfccc.int/methods/lulucf/items/6917.php (accessed 20 February 2015).
74.
United Nations (UN) (2008) United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
New York:
United Nations.
75.
UN-REDD (2013) Guidelines on Free, Prior and Informed Consent.
Geneva:
UN-REDD.
