REDD+ and Green Growth: synergies or discord in Vietnam and Indonesia

Abstract

Green Growth (GG) has emerged as a global narrative, replacing to some extent and integrating earlier sustainable development narratives, while Reducing Emissions through avoiding Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) has developed as major item in climate change negotiations. GG and REDD+ are both considered important strategies and are often seen as synergistic in achieving major changes in economic, regulatory and governance frameworks. Of concern, however, is that GG is sometimes seen as greenwashing of economic activities (which could include forest conversion to other land uses) by an oversimplified presentation of win-win solutions without challenging the actual root causes of unsustainable growth. How GG and REDD+ can contribute to transformational change in policy and practice depends on the relationship between these narratives, especially whether their adoption in national level policies manifests synergies or discord. In this paper, we will answer this question through analysing: (1) how the two narratives have unfolded in Vietnam and Indonesia and to what extent REDD+ and GG rhetoric include concrete policy objectives; (2) what issues policy actors perceive as challenges for their implementation. A comparative, mixed methods approach was employed to analyze how REDD+ and GG are framed in national policy documents. This analysis was supported by data from interviews with policy actors in both countries in two points of time, 2011/12 and 2015/16. The findings highlight the challenges for implementation of both REDD+ and GG as individual policy programmes, and the dilution of the REDD+ agenda and decision makers' confusion about a GG strategy when these narratives are joined and translated by decision makers. Actors still perceive development and environmental objectives as a zero-sum struggle, favouring a development narrative that might lead to neither REDD+ nor green policy action. We conclude that REDD+ and GG can go hand in hand, if there is action to tackle deforestation and degradation.

REDD+: la transformación - Lecciones y nuevas direcciones

“…Una década de debates nacionales e internacionales ha llamado la atención sobre las dimensiones clave de REDD+ que pueden marcar la diferencia en la mitigación basada en los bosques, tales como abordar los problemas de equidad, garantizar una toma de decisiones inclusiva (Pham et al 2017b), proporcionar información y datos transparentes y confiables (Khatri et al 2016), y promover la participación de los pueblos indígenas (Brockhaus et al 2017). Más de 50 países reconocen la importancia de reducir las emisiones derivadas de los impactos en los bosques en sus contribuciones determinadas a nivel nacional (NDC), y un número similar ha elaborado estrategias nacionales de REDD+.…”

“…Henders et al (2018) revisaron 271 documentos sobre INDC y estrategias y planes de acción nacionales para la biodiversidad, y encontraron que solo 14 de ellos establecen de manera explícita el vínculo entre la pérdida de bosques y la producción y consumo de productos de la agricultura industrial. En la práctica, REDD+ también se implementa al mismo tiempo que programas de desarrollo económico que causan la deforestación y la degradación de los bosques (Bastos Lima 2017a; Brockhaus et al 2017;Pham et al 2017b). Además de estos objetivos de políticas en conflicto, también encontramos que los países prestaron especial atención a los aspectos del financiamiento de REDD+ y a la mejora de los sistemas de monitoreo forestal, mientras que los sistemas de gobernanza y salvaguardas forestales recibieron menor atención (figura 6.2).…”

“…Por lo tanto, es esencial crear capacidades entre los actores estatales y no estatales para fortalecer el entendimiento sobre REDD+ y para facilitar el intercambio de conocimientos en todos los niveles de gobernanza, a fin de mejorar las competencias en los aspectos técnicos y operativos de REDD+. Fusionar estas iniciativas sin antes haberlas definido claramente no contribuirá a mejorar la eficacia de las NDC ni de REDD+; en vez de ello, podría diluir objetivos bien definidos de instrumentos de políticas como REDD+ (Pham et al 2017b).…”

The context of REDD+ in Vietnam: Drivers, agents and institutions [2nd edition]

“…The government has set a target for forest cover of approximately 42% by 2020 (Government of Vietnam 2017b). However, while forest cover is increasing, it is unlikely that the 42% target will be met (Pham et al 2017). Drivers of deforestation and degradation discussed in Chapter 1 are difficult to tackle for several political reasons.…”

“…Vietnam's Forest Development Strategy sets the target of certifying at least 30% production forest area by 2020. However, in 2016, the area certified was only 220,000 ha, equivalent to 5.3% total planted area (Pham et al 2017). Sectoral production values are still low with only 0.68% national GDP in 2016 compared with 2-3% set out in Vietnam Forest Development Strategy (Pham et al 2017).…”