143
6
REDD interventions are. Hence, according to the main funder of REDD, this
project was particularly successful. When in-depth research of this case reveals that
the success claims are based on weak evidence, it is a finding that sheds a critical
light on the REDD programme in general and how it is ‘sold’ to a wider audience.
In the case study literature, one might find recommendations for choosing
cases based on previous assumptions that they are, for example, ‘extreme’ in the
sense of being ‘typical’ or ‘crucial’ in relation to a particular phenomenon: ‘If this
is (not) valid for this case, then it applies to all (no) cases’ (Flyvbjerg 2006). Such
case selections might sometimes be possible to do when there are strong and
dominating claims about a particular case. But often this is knowledge that a
researcher only gains after having worked for a while with a study. For instance, we
selected and started the case study in Kondoa before it was presented as a success
case, and it was only later when it was claimed by the Norwegian government to be
a particularly successful case of REDD, that we could consider our study to be ‘a
crucial case’ (sensu Eckstein 1975).
Second, case studies may provide knowledge about mechanisms that also might be
relevant to other cases. In the REDD case in Kondoa we found that the strict closure
of the forest tended to have more serious consequences for the poorest people, for
those who had little or no access to farmland, and for women. Collecting forest
resources was more important for these groups than for other villagers, they had less
access to other livelihood alternatives and the compensation for the loss of forest
livelihoods required resources that the poorest did not have. Such insights require indepth studies using qualitative methods. When doing other case studies, it would be
relevant to investigate whether or not the same—or similar—mechanisms are in place.
Third, case studies on a topic contribute to cumulative knowledge. Researchers
who have conducted an independent in-depth study of a single case are also
expected to stay informed regarding research knowledge about other cases on the
same topic. In-depth knowledge from one or a few cases makes it possible to have
broader comparisons across sites and countries.
When the phenomenon in question is an extensive activity of interventions in
remote areas of the Global South, we find it important to have as many in-depth
case studies as possible conducted by researchers who are independent of the
actors behind the interventions. In the absence of such in-depth studies, the possibilities for understanding the impacts of REDD in different localities around the
world would be limited.
In this chapter, we also write about Norway as a case country in the Global
North that during the last decades has elaborated a national climate mitigation
policy, and we discuss how and why the Norwegian REDD programme has been
established as an important element of this policy. We argue that one of the reasons this knowledge is important, is that it constitutes part of the cumulative
knowledge about REDD interventions. What happen on REDD sites around the
world are not merely the results of local or even national contexts. These interventions must be understood in terms of how they also have emerged as responses to
contexts in the Global North.
6.5 · How Can a Success Narrative About a Failed Project Succeed?
6
REDD interventions are. Hence, according to the main funder of REDD, this
project was particularly successful. When in-depth research of this case reveals that
the success claims are based on weak evidence, it is a finding that sheds a critical
light on the REDD programme in general and how it is ‘sold’ to a wider audience.
In the case study literature, one might find recommendations for choosing
cases based on previous assumptions that they are, for example, ‘extreme’ in the
sense of being ‘typical’ or ‘crucial’ in relation to a particular phenomenon: ‘If this
is (not) valid for this case, then it applies to all (no) cases’ (Flyvbjerg 2006). Such
case selections might sometimes be possible to do when there are strong and
dominating claims about a particular case. But often this is knowledge that a
researcher only gains after having worked for a while with a study. For instance, we
selected and started the case study in Kondoa before it was presented as a success
case, and it was only later when it was claimed by the Norwegian government to be
a particularly successful case of REDD, that we could consider our study to be ‘a
crucial case’ (sensu Eckstein 1975).
Second, case studies may provide knowledge about mechanisms that also might be
relevant to other cases. In the REDD case in Kondoa we found that the strict closure
of the forest tended to have more serious consequences for the poorest people, for
those who had little or no access to farmland, and for women. Collecting forest
resources was more important for these groups than for other villagers, they had less
access to other livelihood alternatives and the compensation for the loss of forest
livelihoods required resources that the poorest did not have. Such insights require indepth studies using qualitative methods. When doing other case studies, it would be
relevant to investigate whether or not the same—or similar—mechanisms are in place.
Third, case studies on a topic contribute to cumulative knowledge. Researchers
who have conducted an independent in-depth study of a single case are also
expected to stay informed regarding research knowledge about other cases on the
same topic. In-depth knowledge from one or a few cases makes it possible to have
broader comparisons across sites and countries.
When the phenomenon in question is an extensive activity of interventions in
remote areas of the Global South, we find it important to have as many in-depth
case studies as possible conducted by researchers who are independent of the
actors behind the interventions. In the absence of such in-depth studies, the possibilities for understanding the impacts of REDD in different localities around the
world would be limited.
In this chapter, we also write about Norway as a case country in the Global
North that during the last decades has elaborated a national climate mitigation
policy, and we discuss how and why the Norwegian REDD programme has been
established as an important element of this policy. We argue that one of the reasons this knowledge is important, is that it constitutes part of the cumulative
knowledge about REDD interventions. What happen on REDD sites around the
world are not merely the results of local or even national contexts. These interventions must be understood in terms of how they also have emerged as responses to
contexts in the Global North.
6.5 · How Can a Success Narrative About a Failed Project Succeed?