Norm Entrepreneurs Sidestep REDD+ in Pursuit of Just and Sustainable Forest Governance

Neil Dawson,David Mwayafu,Hari Dhungana,Michael Mason,Heike Schroeder,Janet Fisher,Mark Zeitoun

doi:10.3390/su10061726

Abstract

This paper explores the dissonance between conceptions of justice among forest-adjacent communities and their representation in global forest policies, a persistent barrier to delivering just sustainability. We empirically track justice claims of rural villagers upwards through specific intermediaries or ‘justice brokers’: civil society, state, or private sector actors operating at local to international levels, who navigate different institutions to advance various social and ecological interests. We draw on interviews with 16 intermediaries in each of Nepal and Uganda and find that recognition of local values and practices such as customary tenure systems are key justice concerns of forest-adjacent communities in each country. However, intermediaries perceive a low likelihood of advancing those claims through national or international climate and forest policy debates, such as REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation), in large part because deliberations on justice are subordinated to concerns such as carbon accounting and arrangements for distributing monetary benefits. This suggests these policy processes must be modified to offer potential for transformational pathways. Intermediaries who pursued recognition justice issues developed innovative tactics in alternative forums. These ‘norm entrepreneurs’ adopted a suite of complementary strategies to attain influence, including: (1) formation of associations at the grassroots level; (2) media and advocacy campaigns through national coalitions to reach powerful international donors, and; (3) drawing on international support networks for advice, training and to influence national government. In both Uganda and Nepal these strategies were evidenced to enhance recognition for local values and practices.

Highlights

A persistent disconnect exists between representations of justice, or equity, in global environmental governance and the type of justice (‘social’, ‘environmental’ or ‘climate justice’) sought by local communities and affected groups [1,2,3,4,5]
While some consider this perceived dissonance to represent an implementation gap that may be closed through capacity-building to enhance social and ecological sustainability, others point to a ‘justice gap’— ideological differences between local justice concerns and the more constrained set of social objectives reflected in global policy [6,7,8,9,10]
As our case studies show, REDD+ or forest and climate governance programmes are implemented not in simple socio-political contexts but complex situations of high social diversity, power inequalities and longstanding recognition-based struggles, where lack of local legitimacy and trust of authorities is likely to threaten their ecological effectiveness. These conditions indicate an imperative for the ‘weaving’ of indigenous and local understandings of ecosystem services and governance norms into mainstream policy processes [44], though such boundary work to bridge normative differences is absent in REDD+, being precluded because the institutions designing and leading the processes struggle to accommodate justice-related recognition norms in social safeguarding discourses and practices

Summary

Introduction

A persistent disconnect exists between representations of justice, or equity, in global environmental governance and the type of justice (‘social’, ‘environmental’ or ‘climate justice’) sought by local communities and affected groups [1,2,3,4,5] While some consider this perceived dissonance to represent an implementation gap that may be closed through capacity-building to enhance social and ecological sustainability, others point to a ‘justice gap’— ideological differences between local justice concerns and the more constrained set of social objectives reflected in global policy [6,7,8,9,10]. Distinction between norms relating to different dimensions of justice (distribution, procedure and recognition) and the processes and interactions leading to their asymmetric representation in policy may be critical for assessing the justice gap between policy and local perspectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion