Discourse Analysis as a Means to Scrutinize REDD+: An Issue of Current Forest Management Debate of Nepal

Abstract

This article shows how discourse analysis can be a methodological tool to scrutinize texts under the aegis of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, sustainable management of forest, and conservation and enhancement of carbon (REDD+). A discourse is a perspective of an individual or an organization, which always tries to achieve a dominant position in the society. Texts used in discourses are impossible to understand properly in isolation. They are the reflections of social practices. Discourses, which contain multiple meanings, are also used as devices to make texts meaningful in regular communication. Analysis of discourses is called discourse analysis. Laclau and Mouffe (1985) believe that social structures (norms, rules and institutions) are created by pre-existing discourses of society, thereby we humans conceive objective reality according to the existing discourses. Alternatively, Fairclough (1995) believes that discourses not only reflect social structure but are also bounded by them. Both perspectives have been used as methodologies to analyse discourses, nonetheless Fairclough's discourse analysis is more pragmatic than Laclau and Mouffee's. The term 'REDD+' implies a discourse about forming new forestry institution in developing countries like Nepal, which is articulated in the name of mitigating deteriorating climate of the world. We suggest combining both perspectives to scrutinize the issue like REDD+. We found that discourse analysis is a suitable method to scrutinize REDD+ in the Nepalese context where people consider forest as a vital source of earning livelihoods and the foundation of sustaining local environment.

Power over Deforestation on the Selected News Articles about Diamond Mining in Buxwaha Forest, India

“…Initially, in corresponding to discourse analysis as one of the primary literature sources, there is a study conducted by Poudel & Aase (2015) discussing about hegemonic position on an activity to conserve forest in Nepal. It is obviously stated that critical study approach is the precisely significant tool of study to disentangle the relation of language and power in environmental issue.…”

“…There are worthwhile results in this research that focuses on REDD+ or Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, sustainable management of forest, and conservation and enhancement of carbon as a new forestry institution in the developing country, Nepal. In essence, CDA successfully proves the failure of forest communities to judge REDD+ as the result of international or national hegemonic practice (Poudel & Aase, 2015). The term called as forest communities is interpreted as 'poor villagers' of 'third world' which means they are seen as the subordinated group.…”

“…Both researches by Putra andTriyono in 2018 andWang 2021 support the systemic theory to apply in this current research. Moreover, based on the data and the approach, two texts in the form of news articles are chosen corresponding to the issue of previous research by Poudel & Aase (2015)which is also observed by CDA. Yet, compared to the study about eco-linguistic by Yuniawan et al, (2017), there is similar focus about environmental problem and different target about the relation of power and language.…”

A Critical Review on the Major Conceptual Strands/debates on the Reduced Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) and Improved Social Livelihoods

“…According to Poudel and Aase (2015), mainly four arguments/narratives have been used by market-based protagonists to justify the necessity of REDD+ in developing countries. First, that eliminating most deforestation would cost US$1-2 per ton Carbon Dioxide (Co 2 ) on average, as they argue that is more inexpensive than other mitigation path.…”

“…Suffice to mention that the protagonists of this hegemonic perspective with powerful narratives about markets and conservation of forests misses out the differentiated impacts of the markets. The grassroots' lived experiences, ideas, and knowledge of the forest dependent community are left out of the equation, and instead push the homogenizing assumptions about the benefits REDD+ initiatives with a win-win discourse remaining an open empirical question.. Further, REDD+ has been noted to represent a myth with a view to solving the problem of carbon emission, control poverty, and avoid biodiversity degradation (Poudel and Aase 2015;Sikor et al, 2010)…”