144
6
6.6 The Win-Win Discourse on REDD: From Hegemony
to Challenges
The main message that is presented by those who contribute to the win-win discourse on REDD is that actors in the Global North should pay for efforts to mitigate global warming by conserving forests in the Global South. In Norway, we
have seen how this has been presented as a cost-effective method of climate action
in comparison to climate cuts in Norway. It is also argued that the resulting forest
conservation contributes to conserve biodiversity and to provide new sources of
income to forest adjacent communities. REDD proponents also often refer to
‘safeguards’ that the UN have established to avoid negative consequences of REDD
for vulnerable people (UN-REDD Programme 2012). Within the win-win discourse
on REDD, there is discussion about whether the payment for carbon storage in
forests should primarily be made through market solutions based on carbon credits, or according to agreements between funding and forest-owning governments.
Some of the most eager contributors to the win-win discourse, are actors who
are among the main funders of REDD programmes. These are the governments in
countries such as Norway, Germany and the UK. Likewise, there are governments
who have received or hope to receive REDD funding. In addition, international
organizations such as the World Bank and the UNDP also contribute to the production of the win-win discourse. Moreover, large international conservation organizations have their own interests in REDD and also adhere to the win-win
discourse on REDD. In the case of Tanzania, these include WWF and AWF.
In Norway, the win-win REDD discourse is hegemonic. This implies that it has
hardly been contested in public and political debates, and the policy about REDD
is almost totally based on its premises. Since 2007, most parties represented in the
parliament have taken part in cabinets in which REDD has constituted a key element of the government’s climate policy. So far, only the right-wing progress party
has a policy that is critical towards REDD.
As we have seen in previous chapters, narratives about specific success cases
often play important roles within win-win discourses on environment and development. On the contrary, the counternarrative that we present on the basis of our
findings from the case study in Kondoa is in line with—and thereby contributes
to—a radical REDD discourse which has clear similarities with other discourses
that we labelled ‘radical’ in 7 Chap. 3.
6.7 Three Types of Carbon Trade
What is carbon trade? The owners of a plantation in Uganda may be paid for tree
planting through carbon trade. Some of that payment might come from a family
on their way from the US to a vacation in South Africa. They pay a voluntary fee
to a carbon trade company and are told that their trip therefore is ‘carbon neutral’.
An energy company in the Netherlands may buy ‘carbon credits’ in order to be
Chapter 6 · Climate Mitigation Choices: Reducing Deforestation ...
6
6.6 The Win-Win Discourse on REDD: From Hegemony
to Challenges
The main message that is presented by those who contribute to the win-win discourse on REDD is that actors in the Global North should pay for efforts to mitigate global warming by conserving forests in the Global South. In Norway, we
have seen how this has been presented as a cost-effective method of climate action
in comparison to climate cuts in Norway. It is also argued that the resulting forest
conservation contributes to conserve biodiversity and to provide new sources of
income to forest adjacent communities. REDD proponents also often refer to
‘safeguards’ that the UN have established to avoid negative consequences of REDD
for vulnerable people (UN-REDD Programme 2012). Within the win-win discourse
on REDD, there is discussion about whether the payment for carbon storage in
forests should primarily be made through market solutions based on carbon credits, or according to agreements between funding and forest-owning governments.
Some of the most eager contributors to the win-win discourse, are actors who
are among the main funders of REDD programmes. These are the governments in
countries such as Norway, Germany and the UK. Likewise, there are governments
who have received or hope to receive REDD funding. In addition, international
organizations such as the World Bank and the UNDP also contribute to the production of the win-win discourse. Moreover, large international conservation organizations have their own interests in REDD and also adhere to the win-win
discourse on REDD. In the case of Tanzania, these include WWF and AWF.
In Norway, the win-win REDD discourse is hegemonic. This implies that it has
hardly been contested in public and political debates, and the policy about REDD
is almost totally based on its premises. Since 2007, most parties represented in the
parliament have taken part in cabinets in which REDD has constituted a key element of the government’s climate policy. So far, only the right-wing progress party
has a policy that is critical towards REDD.
As we have seen in previous chapters, narratives about specific success cases
often play important roles within win-win discourses on environment and development. On the contrary, the counternarrative that we present on the basis of our
findings from the case study in Kondoa is in line with—and thereby contributes
to—a radical REDD discourse which has clear similarities with other discourses
that we labelled ‘radical’ in 7 Chap. 3.
6.7 Three Types of Carbon Trade
What is carbon trade? The owners of a plantation in Uganda may be paid for tree
planting through carbon trade. Some of that payment might come from a family
on their way from the US to a vacation in South Africa. They pay a voluntary fee
to a carbon trade company and are told that their trip therefore is ‘carbon neutral’.
An energy company in the Netherlands may buy ‘carbon credits’ in order to be
Chapter 6 · Climate Mitigation Choices: Reducing Deforestation ...