Content uploaded by Marina Visintini
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marina Visintini on Jul 22, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
REDD+ and Scalar Configurations: A
Political Ecology Perspective
Marina Visintini
June 23, 2024
The REDD+ framework (which stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, with “+”
indicating additional activities related to forest preservation) was introduced as part of the Paris Agreement of the
United Nations Climate Change Conference and was adopted in Warsaw in 2013 (UNFCCC, 2024a). Under REDD+,
developing countries engaging in forest conservation projects are entitled to receive results-based payments
(UNFCCC, 2024a). REDD+ foresees a three-phase implementation: (1) A “readiness phase”, dedicated to the
development of national strategies and local capacity-building; (2) An implementation phase, where strategies and
plans devised in phase one are to be rolled out; and (3) A phase where results of the undertaken activities are to be
measured, reported and verified in order to receive payments (UNFCCC, 2024b). These payments were envisioned
to be embedded in a global cap-and-trade carbon market, with credits to be used towards national emission caps
(Angelsen et al., 2017).
The main actors in REDD+ encompass a broad range of stakeholders: international organizations such as the
United Nations and the World Bank provide frameworks for initiatives; National governments play a critical role in
implementing REDD+ policies (through local governments) and integrating them into their development plans. Local
communities are essential for on-the-ground execution, and even communities not actively involved in REDD+
activities must be recognized as important stakeholders in decision-making processes to ensure their rights and
interests are respected.
Given this international scope and multi-level complexity, the establishment of REDD+ has set the foundation for the
creation of new scalar configurations in the governance of forests. Understanding such scales is essential to
understanding its functioning. In my analysis, I draw inspiration from REDD+ studies in Indonesia by Hein (2019), in
Costa Rica by Wallbott and Florian-Rivero (2018), and in the Amazon by Aguilar-Støen (2017) to analyse these
configurations.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The field of political ecology emerged relatively recently (the term began to be used in the 1970s)
(Neumann, 2014) and is highly interdisciplinary. Even though it lacks a definitive definition, it is generally
agreed that it addresses the interplay between political economy and environmental issues (Tetreault,
2017), and that it examines how the economy and power drive environmental change through local,
national and international networks (Rangan and Kull, 2009).
The understanding of ecology as inherently political is primarily rooted in the notion of scale (Rangan and
Kull, 2009). Scale can be understood as a “sociospatial expression of power” (Green, K.E., 2016:89),
representing the world as socially constructed through operational, observational, and interpretative
actions (Rangan and Kull, 2009). As such, scales are not predefined frames for looking at the world
(such as geographical boundaries or delimited temporal horizons) but are dynamically produced through
social interactions, political processes, and ecological changes (Neumann, 2015). Furthermore, scale
provides a lens to analyse how power influences interactions between actors; in a political ecology
context, power is defined as the capacity of an actor to control their own environmental interactions, as
well as those of others (Bryant and Bailey, 1997). Consequently, the degree of power an actor wields
varies depending on the scale at which their actions and influence are analysed. Blaikie and Brookfield
(1987) emphasize that scale is crucial in the field of land management as it addresses the “boundary
problem of decision-making and of allocating costs and benefits” (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987:14), which
is particularly relevant for analyzing carbon markets in terms of identifying who benefits and who bears
the costs of redistribution.
In choosing the framework of political ecology, I focus on the concept of scale because it is foundational
to understanding the operational, multi-level complexity of REDD+. This framework provides a relevant
perspective on how power and scale interact within these levels, allowing for a comprehensive analysis
of REDD+ operations.
ANALYSIS
REDD+ addresses (or sidesteps) the concept of scale by referring to conservation targets as
“landscapes.” McCall (2016) describes "landscape" as a loosely defined term intended to encompass a
comprehensive approach to forest management and conservation. He argues that this concept, while
versatile across all scales, often ignores issues of “responsibility, entitlements, and governance of forest
space” (McCall, 2016:59) – those dynamics that the notion of scale precisely seeks to analyse and
whose understanding is crucial for the successful implementation of REDD+ activities. A scalar
perspective is necessary not only due to the complexities of governance and power that are inherent to
the REDD+ framework, but also because its multi-level nature introduces new scalar configurations.
Analyzing scale within REDD+ is complex, and therefore, for simplicity, I will address the issue at local,
national, and international levels. This approach might raise eyebrows, as some scholars, such as
Swyngedouw (2004), argue against the rigid separation of these scales in political ecology. Nonetheless,
I contend that this terminology remains valuable for understanding the dynamics, power structures, and
hierarchies within REDD+. The fact that new scalar configurations can be identified at each of these
levels demonstrates that they are not fixed entities, but rather fluid and context-dependent.
SCALAR CONFIGURATIONS AT LOCAL LEVEL: THE IMPOSITION OF
CONSERVATION BOUNDARIES ON LAND
At the local level, REDD+ introduces new scalar configurations by imposing conservation boundaries on
land that is inhabited and exploited by local populations. This disrupts traditional land-use practices and
leads to conflicts over resource access and cultural preservation. Understanding scalar configurations at
local level requires the adoption of a socio-spatial perspective. How does REDD+, a market-based
conservation mechanism, affect spatial development? Primarily by envisioning the establishment of
protected areas that impose new rules and redefine territorial (socially and politically constructed)
boundaries (Hein, 2019). These boundaries affect the conception and use of territories inhabited by
Indigenous people and other forest-dwellers (Wallbott and Florian-Rivero, 2018).Indigenous identity is
often intertwined with their territory (Rani and Olez, 2019). McCall (2016) defines territories as
administrative units that are “the locus of local community/indigenous group socio-spatial organization,
and at national levels, a locus of public policy and interventions” (McCall, 2016:62). This level of analysis
is often overlooked in REDD+ due to its focus on landscapes. While conservation boundaries emerge
from different processes than these administrative units, neglecting the latter leads to conflicts with
established spatial governance and raises questions of responsibility — who should be responsible for
the landscape (McCall, 2016)? Furthermore, local populations are often excluded from decision-making
processes in conservation projects (Rani and Olez, 2019). Field research by Mathur et al. (2014)
indicates that, for this reason, (1) local benefits from the projects are often unclear compared to global
mitigation outcomes and (2) benefits from successful activities were captured unequally.Although
REDD+ includes safeguards to ensure that local populations are informed and have the agency to
accept or reject projects (Wallbott and Florian-Rivero, 2018), these safeguards are often neglected in
their design and implementation. This has, as a result, weakened indigenous rights over their territories
(Rani and Olez, 2019).
SCALAR CONFIGURATIONS AT NATIONAL LEVEL: ECONOMIC
INTERESTS AND GOVERNANCE
At the national level, REDD+ introduces new scalar configurations in several ways. One key aspect is the
perception of the forest's nature - whether it is seen as a source of timber, land, or other resources, or as
a landscape to be protected. Another aspect is how the activities of forest management and governance
should be distributed between national and sub-national institutions. Regarding the nature of the forest,
REDD+ reshapes scalar configurations by establishing carbon credit markets, which create opportunities
for economic growth and access to climate finance (Hein, 2019). Even though in some countries REDD+
objectives have been observed to be clashing with national development aims of economic growth
(Brockhaus et al., 2014), in other instances nature becomes a new "raw material for economic
growth" (Escobar, 1996:334), to be sold as a sustainable development tool. This shift reframes scalar
configurations by (1) imbuing conservation goals with neoliberal values, (2) creating competing interests
between conservation and other economic activities, such as logging or deforestation for agriculture and
(3) creating a conflict between concession planning and conservation areas. These new scalar
configurations often reinforce, rather than eliminate, social and spatial inequalities brought about by
capitalism (While et al., 2010) and supported by the interests of the elites. From the perspective of forest
management and governance, rescaling processes concerning who has authority over a landscape and
the specific activities it is targeted for have been observed in several REDD+ countries of operation.
Rescaling is necessary, as Brockhaus et al. (2014) argue, because existing institutions embody
processes and frameworks that promote deforestation and forest degradation. In Indonesia, for example,
Hein (2019) has noted that the state has either up-scaled (toward international and transnational
organizations), down-scaled (toward local governments and communities), or out-scaled (toward non-
state actors) certain functions related to REDD+. These adjustments represent a new scalar
configuration insofar as they alter the power dynamics and influence of these bodies on the forest,
requiring each entity to establish its legitimacy while competing for influence over their respective areas
of regulation (Hein, 2019). This results in weakened decision-making power over landscapes and in
difficulties in setting the appropriate spatial boundaries with the governance needs of different functions
and activities (McCall, 2016).
SCALAR CONFIGURATIONS AT INTERNATIONAL LEVEL: THE
TRANSNATIONALIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE
At the international level, REDD+ introduces new scalar configurations by embedding national forestry
practices within global carbon markets and transnational environmental governance frameworks. This
process involves both formal international agreements between countries and transnational networks of
various actors (such as the UN, World Bank and NGOs), effectively linking local actions to global
environmental strategies (Hein, 2019).
The establishment of global carbon markets introduced the need for a network of transnational
institutions to set rules and frameworks for their operation (Hein, 2019). Although REDD+ was not the
driver behind the introduction of international forest governance - the term has been known since the
1970s - it was the first framework to expand its focus to move beyond the forestry sector and include
related institutions, agreements and processes (McDermott et al., 2024) by broadening its focus on
landscapes.However, it can be argued that REDD+ has struggled to effectively establish a new scalar
configuration in transnational governance. Its impact is challenging to measure due to inadequate
indicators (Wertz-Kanounnikoff and McNeill, 2012), and its implementation as an efficient market
mechanism has faltered, falling back onto traditional aid models (Angelsen, 2017). As a result, REDD+'s
orientation as a cost-effective mechanism for forest preservation has, just like previously implemented
agreements (Gupta, 2010), mostly served as a way to mitigate the Global North's responsibility for the
climate crisis (Brown and MacLellan, 2020), by shifting the responsibility for carbon emission reduction
downward to the Global South.
CONCLUSIONS
The analysis of REDD+ through the lens of political ecology reveals a complex interplay of scalar
configurations at local, national, and international levels. While REDD+ offers a framework for forest
conservation with potential for significant global impact, this essay has attempted to reveal inherent
contradictions and challenges. Understanding these complexities through political ecology highlights the
need for more inclusive and equitable approaches to governance, ensuring that the responsibility,
benefits and outcomes of conservation efforts are shared fairly and effectively across all levels. Future
efforts must address these scalar dynamics to enhance the efficacy and justice of REDD+ initiatives in
tackling deforestation and promoting sustainable forest management.
LIMITATIONS
Due to the word limit, this essay could not fully expand on the theoretical framework, delve deeper into
power dynamics, provide empirical examples, or summarize proposed solutions. These aspects
represent opportunities for further exploration.
REFERENCES
Aguilar-Støen, M., 2017, January. Better safe than sorry? Indigenous peoples, carbon cowboys and the governance of REDD in the
Amazon. In Forum for Development Studies (Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 91-108). Routledge.
Angelsen, A., 2017. REDD+ as result-based aid: General lessons and bilateral agreements of Norway. Review of Development
Economics, 21(2), pp.237-264.
Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Duchelle, A.E., Larson, A., Martius, C., Sunderlin, W.D., Verchot, L., Wong, G. and Wunder, S., 2017.
Learning from REDD+: a response to Fletcher et al. Conservation Biology, 31(3), pp.718-720.
Blaikie, P. and Brookfield, H., 1987. Land Degradation and Society. London: Methuen.
Bryant, R. L., & Bailey, S., 1997. Third World Political Ecology. Routledge.
Brockhaus, M., Di Gregorio, M. and Mardiah, S., 2014. Governing the design of national REDD+: An analysis of the power of
agency. Forest Policy and Economics, 49, pp.23-33.
Escobar, A., 1996. Construction nature: Elements for a post-structuralist political ecology.
Futures, 28 (4), 325–343.
Green, K.E., 2016. A political ecology of scaling: Struggles over power, land and authority. Geoforum, 74, pp.88-97.
Gupta, J., 2010. A history of international climate change policy. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(5), pp.636-653.
Hein, J.I., 2019. Political ecology of REDD+ in Indonesia: Agrarian conflicts and forest carbon (p. 230). Taylor & Francis.
Mathur, V.N., Afionis, S., Paavola, J., Dougill, A.J. and Stringer, L.C., 2014. Experiences of host communities with carbon market
projects: towards multi-level climate justice. Climate Policy, 14(1), pp.42-62.
McCall, M.K., 2016. Beyond “landscape” in REDD+: the imperative for “territory”. World Development, 85, pp.58-72.
McDermott, C.L., Burns, S.L., Brockhaus, M., 2024, A Political Ecology and Economy of Key Trends in International Forest
Governance. International Forest Governance: A Critical Review of Trends, Drawbacks, and New Approaches, p.19.
Neumann, R., 2014. Making political ecology. Routledge.
Neumann, R. P., 2015. ‘Political ecology of scale’ in Bryant, R. L. (eds.) International Handbook of Political Ecology. Edward Elgar
Publishing Limited.
Rangan, H. and Kull, C.A., 2009. What makes ecology political'?: rethinking scale'in political ecology. Progress in Human
Geography, 33(1), pp.28-45.
Rani, U. and Olez, M., 2019. Sustaining and preserving thet raditional knowledge and institutions of indigenous communities:
Reflections on the way forward. Indigenous peoples and climate change: Emerging Research on Traditional Knowledge and
Livelihoods, pp. 121-128. ILO
Swyngedouw, E., 2004. Globalisation or ‘glocalisation’? Networks, territories and rescaling. Cambridge review of international
affairs, 17(1), pp.25-48.
Tetreault, D., 2017. Three forms of political ecology. Ethics and the Environment, 22(2), pp.1-23.
UNFCCC,2024a. Available at: https://unfccc.int/topics/land-use/workstreams/redd/what-is-redd#:~:text=Forests [Accessed 20 Jun.
2024].
UNFCCC, 2024b. Available at: https://unfccc.int/topics/land-use/workstreams/redd/what-is-redd#the-3-phases-of-redd+-
implementation- [Accessed 20 Jun. 2024].
Wallbott, L. and Florian-Rivero, E.M., 2018. Forests, rights and development in Costa Rica: a political ecology perspective on
indigenous peoples’ engagement in REDD+. Conflict, security & development, 18(6), pp.493-519.
Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S. and McNeill, D., 2012. Performance indicators and REDD+ implementation. Analysing REDD, p.233.
While, A., Jonas, A.E.G. and Gibbs, D. (2010), From sustainable development to carbon control: eco-state restructuring and the
politics of urban and regional development. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 35: 76-93.
