Skip to content
Menu
REDD-Monitor
  • Start here
  • About REDD-Monitor
  • REDD: An introduction
  • Contact
REDD-Monitor

Myths and deforestation

Posted on 20 August 202020 August 2020
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Email this to someone
email

By Chris Lang

“Unearthing the myths of global sustainable forest governance” is a paper published earlier this year in Global Sustainability. “One particularly dominant idea is that sustainability problems can be solved by treating them as predominantly economic problems to be solved by market-based instruments or by mobilizing enough financial resources,” the authors note in the Technical Summary. They add that, “In this article, we suggest that ideas like these are not only challenged by available scientific evidence about the best way to tackle the global forest crisis, but also produce socio-institutional lock-ins.”

The authors of the paper are Izabela Delabre (University of Sussex Business School), Emily Boyd (Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies), Maria Brockhaus (Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry and Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science, Helsinki University), Wim Carton (Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies), Torsten Krause (Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies), Peter Newell (School of Global Studies, University of Sussex), Grace Y. Wong (Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University), and Fariborz Zelli (Department of Political Science, Lund University).

They write that “conventional approaches to governing forests predominantly focus on establishing and protecting private property rights, creating markets and mobilizing private finance, and they fail to effectively – and equitably – address the underlying drivers of deforestation”.

Five myths

The authors identify five persistent myths in forest governance:

    1. States manage forests independently for societal benefit;
    2. Sustainable forest management is threatened by small-scale farmers and people seeking a living on the forest margins;
    3. Markets are the solution to deforestation and forest degradation;
    4. What is counted – through valuation – counts; and
    5. Sustainable forest governance initiatives currently ‘include’ local communities in decision-making.

Each of these myths is associated with a type of “lock-in”, resulting in forests being managed to serve particular actors and their interests. The authors write,

Underlying the definition of a problem such as deforestation – as well as the proposal, design and practice of ‘solutions’ such as carbon forestry, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) and private forest governance – is the creation and discarding of particular meanings (Dryzek, 1997; Hajer & Versteeg, 2005). As sets of ideas, concepts or categorizations, discourses represent dominant perspectives and knowledge regimes through which meaning is given to physical and social realities (Arts et al., 2010; Hajer, 1995). The dominance of certain discourses and narratives in global forest politics supports and strengthens the conditions for business as usual (Nielsen, 2014; Zelli et al., 2019).

Global commitments, ongoing deforestation

Despite the adoption of various global commitments supposedly to protect forests (such as the New York Declaration and the Tropical Forest Alliance 2020), deforestation and degradation continue.

“Unearthing myths that are taken for granted helps to expose complexities and open up debate on more sustainable and equitable ways forward,” the authors write.

In a press release about the paper, Torsten Krause, one the authors, notes that,

Last but not least, we have to recognise that our current consumption patterns plays a major part in incentivising deforestation and mismanagement of forests around the world. Only if we can see these global networks and interactions and, ultimately, our role in these, can we start to do something about them.

The paper includes a table summarising the five myths, their effects, and how they could be countered (click on the image for a larger version):

Over the next few weeks, REDD-Monitor will look at each of the myths highlighted in this paper, as part of the REDD myths series of posts.

 


PHOTO Credit: Brazilian Amazon fire, 1 August 2020 – Monitoring of the Andean Amazon Project.
 

Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Email this to someone
email

Related

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

SUBSCRIBE!

Enter your email address to receive notification of new posts.

Recent themes
Natural Climate Solutions
WWF's conservation scandals
Aviation and offsetting
Conservation Watch

REDDisms

“When you purchase a carbon offset, you are essentially paying someone (like one of our climate-smart coffee farmers) to help undo the environmental damage your flight causes. The cost is nominal, often no more than what it would cost to buy your row-mates a round of in-flight cocktails! As an organization that verifies carbon for the voluntary market, we at the Rainforest Alliance firmly believe that purchasing offsets is as essential to travelling as a good pair of shoes.”

— Rainforest Alliance, The Guardian, January 2015

Recent Posts

  • REDD-Minus: New report reveals the reality of REDD in Mai Ndombe, Democratic Republic of Congo
  • Graeme Biggar, Director-General of the UK’s National Economic Crime Centre: “There is not a sufficient deterrent for fraudsters and there is insufficient recourse for victims”
  • Coronavirus notes #7: How the Colombian government is rolling back social and environment safeguards during the pandemic
  • Peru cancels its World Bank FCPF Carbon Fund programme
  • The World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility’s latest hot air scam: Retroactive credits

Recent Comments

  • j'accuse on The World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility’s latest hot air scam: Retroactive credits
  • Arthur Charles Claxton on Graeme Biggar, Director-General of the UK’s National Economic Crime Centre: “There is not a sufficient deterrent for fraudsters and there is insufficient recourse for victims”
  • Chris Lang on Blackmore Bond collapse: Financial Conduct Authority is “responsible for every penny lost”
  • Sam on Blackmore Bond collapse: Financial Conduct Authority is “responsible for every penny lost”
  • barrywarden on Coronavirus notes #7: How the Colombian government is rolling back social and environment safeguards during the pandemic

Issues and Organisations

AB 32 Boiler rooms Bonn California Can REDD save ... ? Carbon accounting Carbon Credits Carbon Offsets CDM Conservation-Watch Conservation International COP21 Paris Deforestation FCPF FERN Financing REDD Forest definition Fossil fuels FPP Friends of the Earth FSC Greenpeace Guest post ICAO Illegal logging Indigenous Peoples Natural Climate Solutions NGO statements Plantations Poznan R-M interview REDD and rights REDD in the news Risk RSPO-Watch Safeguards Sengwer Sustainable Forest Management The Nature Conservancy Ulu Masen UN-REDD UNFCCC World Bank WRM WWF

Countries

Australia Bolivia Brazil Cambodia Cameroon Canada China Colombia Congo Basin region DR Congo Ecuador El Salvador European Union France Germany Guatemala Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Laos Luxembourg Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Nicaragua Nigeria Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Republic of Congo Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA Vietnam West Papua
©2021 REDD-Monitor | Powered by WordPress and Superb Themes!