2
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………….....p.
3
Trends
in
Forest
Loss
and
Use……………………………………………………………......p.
7
Chapter
1:
Using
our
Forests,
Sustainably………………………………………………………..p.
15
1.1
History
in
the
Making:
The
Institutionalization
of
SFM……………………..p.
15
1.2
What
Does
it
Mean,
Exactly?

Breaking
Down
the
SFM
Concept………...p.
19
1.3
Trying
to
Make
it
Work:
Operationalizing
a
Definition
in
Progress……p.
22
1.4
Exploring
the
Flaws:
SFM
is
not
without
its
Critiques……………………….p.
25
Chapter
2………………………………………………………………………………………………………..p.
30
2.1
Building
REDD
out
of
the
Conservation
and
Development
Discourse...p.
30
2.1.1
The
Influence
of
Shared
Histories‐
Preparing
the
Stage
for
REDD
 as
an
Expression
of
Global
Governance………………..………..…....……p.
30
2.1.2
Designing
a
Multi‐Level
Mechanism…...............................................p.
38
2.1.3
Introducing
the
Players…………….........................................................p.
44
2.2
Positioning
REDD
in
International
Governance
and
the
Current
Political
Economy……………………………..……………………………………………………...p.
47
2.2.1
Creating
A
New
Model
of
Conservation
and
Governance,
or
Redefining
What
Once
Was?...............................................................p.
47
2.2.2

A
Twist
on
Neoliberalism?.....................................................................p.
49
Chapter
3:
Blowing
Down
the
House
of
Cards‐
REDD’s
Future
Failure
and
the
Call
for
 the
Post‐Development
Perspective………………………………………………………………….p.
52
3.1
Introducing
the
Post‐Development
Concept………………………………........p.
53
3.2
Post‐Development‐
What
Does
it
Mean,
Exactly?...........................................p
55
3.3
Market,
State
and
Science:
The
Defunct
Pillars
of
a
Global
REDD
Initiative…………….................................................................……..........p.
59
3.4
Sustainable
Forest
Management
in
REDD:
Daring
for
a
Post‐Development
Approach………………………………………………………………………………………..p.
69
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………...p.
73
Works
Cited……………………………………………………………………………………………………p.
78

3
INTRODUCTION
Intent
of
Research
This
 paper
 will
 explore
 the
 opportunities
 and
 challenges
 of
 defining
 and
 implementing
Sustainable
Forest
Management
principles
within
the
context
of
the
 newly
 created
 Reducing
 Emissions
 from
 Deforestation
 and
 Forest
 Degradation
 mechanism,
better
known
as
REDD.

It
will
do
so
by
first
analyzing
the
theoretical
 components
of
Sustainable
Forest
Management
and
placing
this
concept
within
the
 global
carbon
debate,
which
has
within
the
last
20
years
become
the
focal
point
for
 the
 merging
 of
 the
 conservation
 and
 international
 development
 discourses.
Through
investigating
the
institutional
structure
of
REDD
and
its
relationship
to
the
 dominant
 development
 paradigm
 built
 upon
 market
 capitalism
 and
 Western
 science,
the
paper
will
then
use
a
post‐development
critique
to
argue
that
REDD
is
a
 twenty‐first
 century
 extension
 of
 failed
 development
 policies
 and
 will,
 as
 a
 result,
 likewise
 fail
 to
 achieve
 its
 own
 global
 mission:
 substantially
 addressing
 climate
 change,
protecting
the
world’s
forests
and
biodiversity,
and
promoting
sustainable
 development.

The
paper
will
conclude
by
identifying
the
components
of
SFM
that
in
 fact
do
offer
great
promise
in
promoting
sustainable
forestland
use
and
which
must
 be
maintained
and
further
developed
if
its
success
in
ensuring
community
wellbeing
 at
a
global
level
is
to
be
realized.
Importance
and
Target
Audience
The
 importance
 of
 this
 research
 lies
 in
 its
 immediate
 applicability
 to
 both
 practical
 forest
 management
 dialogues
 and
 conceptualizing
 this
 nascent
 international
 governance
 regime.
 
 The
 Copenhagen
 Accord,
 issued
 on
 December

4
18 th ,
 2009
 has
 recognized
 an
 expanded
 version
 of
 the
 initial
 REDD
 mechanism,
 known
as
REDD‐plus,
as
a
legitimate
climate
change
mitigation
mechanism
that
will
 feature
 prominently
 in
 the
 current
 international
 efforts
 to
 reduce
 greenhouse
 gas
 emissions.
1 
 
 Among
 other
 forestland
 use
 activities
 that
 will
 be
 discussed
 in
 this
 paper,
REDD‐plus
directly
states
that
“sustainable
management
of
forests”
will
be
a
 mitigation
action
available
to
the
forest
sector.

As
communities,
governments,
civil
 society
organizations,
the
private
sector
and
multinational
donor
agencies
begin
to
 implement
 this
 very
 complicated
 mitigation
 mechanism,
 a
 thorough
 analysis
 of
 opportunities,
 pitfalls
 and
 sustainable
 development
 potential
 through
 community‐
sponsored
forest
stewardship
will
be
essential.
Therefore,
 this
 research
 and
 analysis
 largely
 targets
 two
 communities.
Firstly,
 the
 policy
 makers
 who
 currently
 hold
 the
 responsibility
 of
 developing
 the
REDD
 mechanism
 must
 be
 addressed.
 
 The
 Copenhagen
 Accord
 has
 spurred
 the
 creation
 of
 institutional
 structures
 and
 processes
 that
 will
 be
 responsible
 for
 the
 control
of
billions
of
dollars
annually
through
the
interaction
of
a
global
network
of
 people,
 projects
 and
 earth
 systems.
 
 As
 REDD
 will
 be
 a
 critical
 component
 of
 this
 network,
 its
 creators
 must
 be
 conscious
 of
 the
 very
 basic
 tenets
 which
 threaten
 success
 from
 its
 inception.
 
 Secondly,
 the
 practitioners
 of
 Sustainable
 Forest
Management
 must
 constantly
 be
 incorporated
 as
 they
 provide
 the
 crucial
 link
 between
 grounded
 results
 and
 the
 decision
 makers
 mentioned
 above.
 
 
 By
 identifying
the
larger
systemic
requirements
for
SFM’s
success,
these
practitioners
 will
 be
 able
 to
 continue
 focusing
 their
 efforts
 on
 clarifying
 implementable
1 
(UNFCCC,
2009a)

5
 definitions
 of
 SFM
 and
 its
 role
 in
 supporting
 truly
 endogenous,
 community‐ sponsored
development
strategies.
Methodology
and
Organization
The
 analysis
 presented
 in
 this
 paper
 is
 based
 upon
 information
 originating
 from
various
sources
of
literature.

Textual
analysis
of
academic
articles
forms
the
 basis
of
the
paper’s
natural
science
and
development
theory
analysis
as
well
as
the
 post‐development
 critique,
 with
 support
 from
 policy
 briefs,
 regional
 forums
 and
 both
national
and
international
conference
proceedings
discussing
SFM,
REDD‐plus
 and
community
development
efforts.
A
robust
review
of
Sustainable
Forest
Management
comes
from
the
natural
 sciences,
in
which
publications
from
academia,
land
and
resource
use
professionals
 and
 the
 international
 forestry
 community
 have
 been
 thoroughly
 analyzed.
 
 SFM
 requires
a
global
perspective
as
applied
within
the
REDD‐plus
framework
due
to
its
 inclusion
 of
 multiple
 resources
 and
 resource
 users,
 which
 vary
 substantially
 between
 locations.
 
 As
 REDD‐plus
 has
 now
 become
 an
 international
 mitigation
 mechanism,
 it
 must
 be
 responsive
 to
 an
 international
 definition
 of
 SFM
 as
 well
 as
 able
to
be
implemented
across
the
globe.
Negotiating
texts
and
reports
from
the
UNFCCC
and
associated
international
 bodies
forms
a
very
important
part
of
this
research.

These
texts
are
the
institutional
 frameworks
 in
 which
 SFM
 will
 be
 expressed
 through
 REDD‐plus
 activities.
 
 Field
 reports
and
publications
from
civil
society
organizations
involved
in
the
design
and
 implementation
of
REDD‐plus
mitigation
projects
also
are
included
in
the
literature

6
 review.


These
are
the
most
readily
available
materials
due
to
the
fact
that
REDD‐ plus
 is
 such
 a
 recent
 development
 in
 international
 climate
 change
 discussions.
Additionally,
the
internet
has
played
a
very
prominent
role
in
my
efforts
to
reach
the
 required
 saturation,
 as
 most
 publications
 become
 available
 on
 specific
 organizations’
websites.
The
information
and
analysis
is
presented
in
three
main
chapters.

Chapter
One
 concentrates
 on
 the
 evolution
 of
 Sustainable
 Forest
 Management
 as
 a
 land
 management
 philosophy
 and
 an
 institutional
 force,
 tracing
 the
 course
 of
 its
 development
from
the
dominance
of
traditional
forest
timber
harvesting,
through
its
 association
 with
 the
 sustainable
 development
 discourse
 of
 the
 1980s
 and
 into
 its
 present,
pluralistic
form,
with
mention
of
its
varied
critiques.

Chapter
Two
explores
 the
 merging
 of
 the
 conservation
 and
 international
 development
 discourses
 as
 the
 nexus
of
REDD’s
creation.

It
discusses
the
institutional
shifting
that
has
taken
place
 to
make
room
for
this
global
initiative,
elevating
SFM
to
international
significance.
Chapter
Three
analyzes
the
foundational
flaws
inherent
to
REDD
as
an
expression
of
 the
traditional
development
paradigm
through
a
post‐development
filter,
criticizing
 its
basic
components
of
reliance
on
free
market
capitalism
and
technocratic
science
 for
 mitigating
 climate
 change,
 alleviating
 poverty
 and
 promoting
 sustainable
 development.
 
 This
 chapter
 also
 identifies
 how
 SFM
 may
 operate
 as
 post‐ development
practice
and
therefore
be
harnessed
as
a
tool
for
safeguarding
forest
 systems
in
the
pursuit
of
re‐envisioning
the
process
of
sustainable
development
and
 natural
 resource
 use.
 
 The
 paper
 concludes
 by
 emphasizing
 the
 growing
 contradictions
inherent
in
the
pursuit
of
sustainable
development
practice
and
the

7
 challenges
 this
 presents
 to
 REDD’s
 success.
 
 Further
 research
 that
 applies
 a
 post‐ development
 analysis
 on
 the
 mitigation
 options
 available
 through
 REDD
 that
 this
 paper
has
not
discussed
is
highly
encouraged.
TRENDS
IN
FOREST
LOSS
AND
USE
Losing
our
Forests
The
extent
to
which
the
earth’s
tropical
forest
ecosystems
are
being
lost,
the
 rate
 at
 which
 this
 is
 taking
 place
 and
 the
 significant
 threats
 this
 presents
 to
 the
 healthy
functioning
of
the
planet
and
its
people,
have
been
well
documented
across
 the
globe.

As
of
2005,
the
annual
deforestation
rate
had
reached
approximately
13
 million
hectares,
out
of
the
4
billion
hectares
of
standing
forest
remaining.

Although
 offset
 by
 both
 natural
 regeneration
 processes
 and
 reforestation
 and
 afforestation
 efforts
taking
place
in
various
regions,
the
net
forest
loss
globally
from
2000
to
2005
 was
 7.3
 million
 hectares
 annually,
 equal
 to
 roughly
 200
 km 2 
 per
 day.
2 
 
 Such
 large
 figures
make
conceptualizing
the
impact
of
this
unprecedented
rapid
conversion
of
 forest
landscape
extremely
difficult,
as
does
the
fact
that
on
an
international
scale,
 this
 only
 represents
 0.325%
 of
 the
 land
 area
 covered
 by
 forest.
 
 However,
 when
 considering
 the
 specific
 ecological
 dynamics
 of
 forested
 ecosystems,
 the
 extensive
 and
 established
 socio‐economic
 networks
 of
 forest‐dependent
 people
 and
 the
 services
 such
 ecosystems
 provide
 to
 the
 global
 community
 as
 a
 whole,
 these
 statistics
become
extremely
alarming.
2 
("Food
and
Agriculture
Organization
of
the
United
Nations,"
2009)

8
Tropical
 forests
 provide
 habitat
 for
 approximately
 90%
 of
 all
 terrestrial
 biodiversity,
 and
 estimates
 from
 the
 United
 Nation’s
 Food
 and
 Agriculture
Organization
(FAO)
state
that
tropical
deforestation
may
be
resulting
in
the
loss
of
100
species
per
day.
3 

Not
only
does
this
represent
a
“pauperization” 4 
of
the
earth’s
 biological
 resources
 in
 a
 cultural
 and
 aesthetic
 context,
 it
 creates
 substantial
 challenges
 for
 the
 functional
 ecological
 services
 on
 which
 local
 and
 global
 communities,
 both
 human
 and
 nonhuman,
 depend
 as
 well.
 
 According
 to
 the
Convention
 on
 Biological
 Diversity,
 “the
 maintenance
 of
 ecological
 processes
 is
 dependent
upon
the
maintenance
of
their
biological
diversity.” 5 

A
report
published
 in
 2009
 by
 the
 International
 Union
 of
 Forest
 Research
 Organizations
 (IUFRO)
 categorized
 these
 processes
 into
 four
 distinct
 groups:
 supporting,
 provisioning,
 regulating
and
cultural
services.
6 

While
the
specifics
of
each
group
are
beyond
the
 focus
 of
 this
 paper,
 this
 list
 clearly
 illustrates
 the
 integral
 roles
 that
 forest
 biodiversity
and
the
services
it
provides
have
in
ensuring
global
ecological
health.
Forests
for
Development
Increasingly,
 the
 discussion
 concerning
 tropical
 deforestation
 is
 expanding
 beyond
environmental
conservation
and
into
international
development.

With
over
1.6
 billion
 people
 dependent
 on
 forests
 to
 some
 degree
 for
 subsistence
 and
 livelihood,
and
with
a
significant
number
living
in
extreme
poverty,
tropical
forest
 loss
and
its
many
drivers
cannot
be
separated
from
its
negative
impacts
on
human
3
4
("Food
and
Agriculture
Organization
of
the
United
Nations,"
2009)
(Wilson,
2006)
5 
("Convention
on
Biological
Diversity,"
2009)
6 
( Adaptation
of
Forests
and
People
to
Climate
Change­
A
Global
Assessment
Report ,
2009)

9
 communities.
7 

Uncontrolled
large‐scale
agriculture
aimed
largely
at
export
markets,
 weak
 forest
 governance
 institutions,
 corrupt
 timber
 harvesting
 practices,
 population
 pressures,
 illegal
 logging
 activities
 and
 natural
 resource
 extractive
 industries
 contribute
 heavily
 to
 complete
 deforestation,
 various
 forms
 of
 forest
 degradation
and
increased
marginalization
of
forest‐dependent
people.

According
 to
the
United
Nations,
regions
of
the
world
that
have
not
yet
achieved
high
levels
of
 development
 are
 those
 which
 continue
 to
 suffer
 the
 most
 substantial
 forest
 loss.
Seven
 of
 the
 10
 countries
 that
 experienced
 the
 highest
 rates
 of
 deforestation
 between
 2000
 and
 2005
 fall
 in
 the
 bottom
 25%
 of
 the
 United
 Nation’s
 Human
Development
Index
rankings.
8
To
 make
 matters
 worse,
 the
 range
 of
 factors
 involved
 in
 perpetuating
 tropical
 deforestation
 operates
 at
 an
 increasingly
 international
 scale
 and
 have
 consequently
made
creating
and
implementing
solutions
extremely
difficult.

Efforts
 to
create
awareness
of
the
loss
of
forest
ecosystems
and
to
encourage
a
reduction
of
 deforestation
 rates
 coalesced
 in
 the
 Forest
 Principles
 of
 the
 Rio
 de
 Janeiro
 Earth
Summit’s
1992
hallmark
document,
Agenda
21.

According
to
Principle
Two,
“Forest
 resources
 and
 forest
 lands
 should
 be
 sustainably
 managed
 to
 meet
 the
 social,
 economic,
 ecological,
 cultural
 and
 spiritual
 needs
 of
 present
 and
 future
 generations.” 9 

While
echoing
many
sentiments
of
the
Brundtland
Report,
published
 five
 years
 earlier,
 the
 Forest
 Principles
 of
 the
 Rio
 Declaration
 provided
 little
7 
( The
Little
REDD+
Book ,
2009)
8 
The
top
ten
countries,
with
HDI
rankings
in
parentheses,
are
Venezuela
(61),
Brazil
(70),
Indonesia
(109),
Myanmar
(135),
Sudan
(146),
Tanzania
(152),
Nigeria
(154),
Zambia
(163),
Democratic
Republic
of
Congo
(177)
and
Zimbabwe
(unranked).

2008
Census
9 
( Agenda
21 ,
1992)

10
 substance
on
which
the
international
community
could
successfully
act
in
order
to
 stem
the
loss
of
tropical
forestland.

They
spoke
broadly
of
the
need
to
ensure
the
“management,
 conservation
 and
 sustainable
 development
 of
 forests
 and
 forest
 lands”
 without
 guidance
 on
 how
 to
 do
 so
 or
 what
 this
 would
 entail.
10 
 
 The
 World
Commission
 on
 Forests
 and
 Sustainable
 Development
 in
 1999
 published
 a
 report
 titled
 “Our
 Forests
 Our
 Future”
 that
 attempted
 to
 draw
 attention
 to
 the
 factors
 causing
such
widespread
deforestation
such
as
market
failures
and
inaccurate
forest
 valuation,
 illegal
 harvesting
 pressures,
 poor
 governance
 and
 land
 tenure
 policies
 that
marginalize
vulnerable
communities,
such
as
women
and
indigenous
groups.

In
 doing
so,
the
Commission
began
to
create
an
action
plan
to
“stop
the
destruction
of
 the
 earth’s
 forests”
 through
 multiple
 avenues,
 including
 intensified
 agroforestry
 operations,
 community
 forestry
 programs,
 the
 development
 of
 industrial
 timber
 harvesting
 codes
 of
 conduct,
 enhancement
 of
 market
 mechanisms
 to
 reflect
 true
 forest
 product
 values
 and
 greater
 public
 ownership.
11 
 
 However,
 ten
 years
 have
 passed
 since
 the
 publication
 of
 this
 document
 and
 none
 of
 the
 recommendations
 have
 been
 seriously
 developed
 nor
 successfully
 implemented,
 either
 by
 national
 bodies
or
international
development
agencies.
What
 both
 documents
 do 
 share
 as
 a
 common,
 fundamental
 concept
 for
 the
 preservation
of
global
forest
resources
is
their
support
for
sustainable
use.

Tropical
 forests
provide
an
immense
variety
of
goods,
both
in
the
form
of
timber
and
non‐ timber
 products,
 that
 sustain
 tribal
 villages,
 provide
 income
 to
 local
 communities,
10 
( Agenda
21 ,
1992)
11 
( Our
Forests
Our
Future ,
1999)

11
 play
 large
 roles
 in
 national
 economies
 and
 feature
 in
 a
 variety
 of
 established
 international
markets.

Complete
no‐take
conservation
areas
should
definitely
play
a
 role
 in
 the
 global
 attempt
 to
 maintain
 and
 enhance
 the
 biodiversity
 and
 environmental
 processes
 of
 forestlands.
 
 However,
 the
 sustainable
 use
 of
 forest
 ecosystems,
 where
 extraction
 intensities
 vary
 depending
 on
 forest
 type
 and
 the
 product(s)
 of
 interest,
 will
 be
 a
 crucial
 component
 to
 providing
 continued
 human
 well
being
and
sustaining
ecological
services.
The
Missing
Link
Although
 the
 concept
 of
 sustainable
 use
 has
 increasingly
 sought
 to
 incorporate
 the
 multiple
 resources
 that
 may
 be
 cultivated
 from
 forest
 systems,
 including
seeds,
fruits,
gums,
wildlife,
artisan
components
and
many
more,
much
of
 the
 tension
 regarding
 sustainability
 and
 forests
 has
 arisen
 from
 the
 glaringly
 destructive
 practices
 of
 conventional
 tropical
 timber
 harvesting.
 
 Agricultural
 pressures,
 infrastructure
 development
 and
 fuelwood
 collection
 by
 many
 of
 the
 world’s
rural
poor
constitute
a
large
source
of
deforestation
and
forest
degradation,
 yet
 the
 timber
 industry
 receives
 much
 of
 the
 criticism
 due
 to
 its
 visibility.
 
 Large‐ scale
clearcuts,
mudslides,
completely
denuded
hillsides
and
post‐harvest
landscape
 erosion
damages
are
too
often
the
legacy
of
uncontrolled,
unmonitored
and
poorly
 planned
 timber
 harvesting
 operations.
 
 Forest
 ecosystems
 and
 the
 biodiversity
 it
 supports
will
not
survive
if
such
management
practices
continue.

Indeed,
the
IUFRO

12
 report
 candidly
 states
 that
 “at
 present…many
 forests
 are
 not
 managed
 sustainably.” 12
Yet
 even
 with
 the
 growing
 popularity
 of
 sustainable
 management
 as
 a
 resource
use
paradigm,
coming
up
with
a
strategy
to
combat
unsustainable
timber
 harvesting
as
well
as
the
myriad
other
drivers
of
tropical
forest
loss
proved
to
be
 practically
 impossible
 until
 2005.
 
 The
 underlying
 factors
 were
 too
 diverse
 and
 widespread
for
a
single
approach.

However,
at
the
11 th 
Conference
of
the
Parties
to
 the
 United
 Nations
 Framework
 Convention
 on
 Climate
 Change
 (UNFCCC)
 in
Montreal,
Canada,
Costa
Rica
and
Papua
New
Guinea
proposed
a
new,
international
 concept
 that
 aimed
 at
 bringing
 all
 of
 the
 components
 which
 contribute
 to
 deforestation
and
degradation
under
one
leading
theme:
carbon.

As
climate
change
 grew
into
a
global
scientific
and
political
phenomenon
and
an
increasing
number
of
 mitigation
 initiatives
 formed,
 the
 link
 between
 forests
 and
 carbon
 assumed
 international
prominence.

Now
there
was
an
umbrella
concept
that
could
address
 all
of
the
deforestation
drivers
and
incorporate
them
within
an
active
international
 dialogue.
The
Rise
of
REDD
Known
as
Reducing
Emissions
from
Deforestation
and
Degradation
(REDD),
 this
strategy
was
immediately
labeled
by
the
international
community
as
one
of
the
 most
cost‐effective
approaches
for
quickly
reducing
emissions
and
mitigating
severe
 climate
 change
 consequences.
 
 While
 current
 estimates
 vary,
 deforestation
 and
12 
( Adaptation
of
Forests
and
People
to
Climate
Change­
A
Global
Assessment
Report ,
2009,
p.
p.9)

13
 degradation
activities
contribute
approximately
20%
of
the
global
carbon
emissions
 and
are
second
only
to
the
energy
sector,
making
this
a
carbon
source
that
cannot
be
 ignored.
13 
 
 In
 essence,
 REDD
 operates
 on
 the
 premise
 that
 countries
 deforest
 in
 response
to
the
land
use
system
that
realizes
the
highest
current
economic
return,
 which
 can
 include
 mining,
 agriculture,
 timber
 removal,
 development
 of
 infrastructure
 or
 others.
 
 If
 accurate
 economic
 analyses
 are
 done
 on
 the
 value
 of
 forested
lands,
a
country
which
receives
payments
that
exceed
profits
from
the
most
 lucrative
land
conversion
alternative
will
instead
protect
its
standing
forests,
which
 are
 an
 immense
 pool
 and
 sink
 of
 the
 atmospheric
 carbon
 responsible
 for
 the
 observed
rise
in
global
temperatures.

In
this
way,
forested
countries
will
have
the
 financial
incentive
to
avoid
deforesting
their
land
as
part
of
an
international
attempt
 to
 reduce
 drastic
 changes
 in
 the
 climate,
 as
 well
 as
 achieve
 the
 various
 forest
 conservation
goals
that
had
proven
to
be
so
elusive
in
the
past.

Carbon,
therefore,
 has
become
the
forest’s
most
valuable
asset.
REDD
Approved
Among
 the
 many
 significant
 topics
 that
 were
 discussed
 at
 the
 December
2009
 15 th 
 Conference
 of
 the
 Parties
 to
 the
 UNFCCC
 in
 Copenhagen,
 including
 the
 possibility
 of
 substantially
 deeper
 emission
 reduction
 targets
 by
 industrialized
 countries
 and
 the
 future
 of
 the
 Kyoto
 Protocol,
 the
 form
 and
 function
 of
 a
 REDD
 mechanism
received
considerable
attention.

Of
particular
significance
to
this
paper
 is
 the
 inclusion
 of
 Sustainable
 Forest
 Management
 (SFM)
 into
 the
 fundamental
REDD
architecture,
which
began
two
years
earlier
at
the
December
2007
13 th 
COP
to
13 
( The
Little
REDD+
Book ,
2009)

14
 the
 UNFCCC
 that
 met
 in
 Indonesia.
 
 At
 this
 meeting,
 the
 Parties
 expanded
 the
 potential
 scope
 of
 a
 REDD
 mechanism
 with
 the
 drafting
 of
 the
 “Bali
 Action
 Plan”,
 which
 calls
 for
 “policy
 measures
 and
 incentives
 to
 reduce
 emissions
 from
 deforestation
 and
 forest
 degradation
 in
 developing
 countries;
 and
 the
 role
 of
 conservation,
 sustainable
management
of
forests 
and
enhancement
of
forest
carbon
 stocks
in
developing
countries.” 14 

These
latter
three
activities,
known
as
REDD‐plus,
 significantly
 enlarge
 the
 mission
 of
 a
 REDD
 mechanism
 by
 extending
 funding
 to
 a
wide
 range
 of
 land
 use
 options
 beyond
 just
 forest
 preservation.
 
 Appearing
 in
 various
 final
 Draft
 Decisions
 issued
 by
 the
 Copenhagen
 COP,
 REDD‐plus
 stands
 to
become
a
very
active
future
climate
change
mitigation
mechanism.
14 
( The
Little
REDD+
Book ,
2009,
p.
(italics
added))

15
CHAPTER
1‐
USING
OUR
FORESTS,
SUSTAINBLY
1.1
History
in
the
Making:
The
Institutionalization
of
SFM
Sustainable
Forest
Management
(SFM)
has
become
a
term
used
in
a
variety
 of
 contexts
 that
 aim
 to
 ensure
 the
 continual
 supply
 of
 forest‐based
 benefits
 into
 perpetuity.

Although
SFM
lacks
a
concise
and
universally
operational
definition,
and
 disagreement
over
its
use
and
meaning
is
widespread,
it
has
become
an
increasingly
 important
 topic
 of
 national
 and
 global
 debate
 and
 stands
 to
 become
 a
 dominant
 paradigm
in
international
natural
resource
management.

The
concept
of
SFM
began
 to
 gain
 significant
 political,
 economic
 and
 academic
 prominence
 during
 the
 relatively
 recent
 rise
 of
 international
 sustainable
 development
 discourse
 and
 activity,
 initiated
 by
 the
 Chairman
 of
 the
 World
 Commission
 on
 Environment
 and
Development,
 Gro
 Harlem
 Brundtland,
 who
 spearheaded
 the
 1987
 seminal
 work,
Our
 Common
 Future .
15 
 
 In
 this
 publication,
 she
 presented
 the
 basic
 definition
 of
 sustainable
development
that
has
established
itself
as
the
principle
building
block,
 in
 one
 form
 or
 another,
 of
 practically
 all
 related
 discussions:
 
 “Sustainable
 development
 is
 development
 that
 meets
 the
 needs
 of
 the
 present
 without
 compromising
 the
 ability
 of
 future
 generations
 to
 meet
 their
 own
 needs.” 16
Immediately,
 the
 international
 forest
 science
 and
 policy
 community
 began
 investigating
 the
 position
 of
 forest
 resource
 use
 and
 economic
 theory
 in
 this
 restructured
 framework
 that
 attempted
 to
 address
 the
 planet’s
 increasing
 environmental
problems
while
simultaneously
maintaining
global
economic
growth.
15 
(Hickey,
2008;
Ljungman,
Martin,
&
Whiteman,
1999;
Oliver,
2003;
Wang,
2004)
16 
(Development,
1987,
p.
42)

16
In
fact,
interest
in
the
role
of
the
forestry
sector
within
the
discourse
of
late
 twentieth
century
international
development
preceded
the
above
mentioned
events
 as
 expressed
 through
 the
 collaborative
 efforts
 of
 the
 UN‐sponsored
 International
Tropical
 Timber
 Organization
 (ITTO),
 an
 intergovernmental
 partnership
 that
 actively
 promotes
 the
 sustainable
 management,
 conservation,
 use
 and
 trade
 of
 tropical
 forest
 resources.
 
 Dialogue
 concerning
 the
 rapid
 deforestation
 in
 tropical
 environments
along
with
the
growing
market
in
timber
products
sourced
from
the
 tropics
prompted
the
first
International
Tropical
Timber
Agreement
(ITTA)
of
1983.
This
aimed
to
marry
the
needs
of
tropical
forest
conservation
while
incorporating
 the
 increasingly
 popular
 tenets
 of
 sustainable
 development,
 namely
 socio‐cultural
 and
ecological
values,
into
the
workings
of
the
market‐driven
global
economy.

As
 the
ITTA
underwent
revision
and
updating
over
the
years,
the
organization
focused
 its
 ultimate
 goal
 on
 creating
 an
 international
 trade
 in
 tropical
 timber
 completely
 sourced
from
sustainably
managed
forests,
called
the
Year
2000
Objective.
17 

While
 this
 has
 fallen
 short
 of
 its
 objective,
 the
 ITTO
 continues
 to
 provide
 international
 leadership
in
improving
the
tropical
forestry
sector
and
to
influence
the
expanding
pursuit
of
global
sustainable
forest
management
practice
and
thought.
The
 15
 years
 following
 the
 publication
 of
 Our
 Common
 Future 
 witnessed
 a
 substantial
effort
to
create
the
institutional
structures
and
capacity
that
forestland
 resource
managers,
private
conservation
organizations,
development
agencies
and
 both
state
and
international
policy‐makers
considered
necessary
for
the
successful
17 
(ITTO,
2004‐2010)

17
 implementation
of
sustainable
development
rhetoric
in
the
context
of
global
forests.
As
 discussed
 above,
 the
 1992
 Rio
 de
 Janeiro
 Earth
 Summit
 gave
 priority
 to
 forest
 ecosystem
conservation
translated
through
the
language
of
the
Brundtland
Report,
 highlighting
 a
 variety
 of
 economic,
 social
 and
 ecological
 factors
 that
 must
 be
 incorporated
 into
 the
 forest
 conservation
 and
 development
 discourse.
 
 The
 1995
Intergovernmental
 Forum
 on
 Forests
 (IFF),
 initiated
 by
 the
 Commission
 on
Sustainable
 Development
 then
 provided
 the
 initial
 platform
 for
 forest
 policy
 deliberations.
 
 Two
 years
 later,
 the
 IFF
 transformed
 into
 the
 Intergovernmental
Panel
 on
 Forests
 (IPF)
 with
 a
 goal
 of
 addressing
 previously
 unresolved
 themes,
 including
 the
 role
 and
 use
 of
 financial
 resources
 as
 well
 as
 the
 transfer
 of
 environmentally
 sound
 technologies.
 
 The
 currently
 operational
 United
 Nations
Forum
on
Forests
(UNFF),
created
in
2001,
represents
the
culmination
of
those
past
10
 years
 of
 international
 collaboration
 in
 the
 pursuit
 of
 establishing
 effective
 mechanisms
 to
 encourage
 forest
 policy
 dialogue
 and
 promote
 the
 “management,
 conservation
and
sustainable
development
of
all
types
of
forest.” 18 


A
legacy
of
the
 two
former
institutions
is
the
IFF/IPF
“Proposals
for
Action”,
which
encompass
the
 products
 of
 the
 decade‐long
 dialogue
 process
 and
 which
 form
 the
 basis
 of
 the
UNFF’s
global
mission.
Contemporaneous
 with
 the
 developments
 taking
 place
 within
 the
 United
Nations,
 national
 government
 bodies
 and
 industry
 leaders
 began
 organizing
 into
 regional
 associations
 with
 a
 focus
 on
 creating
 sets
 of
 Criteria
 and
 Indicators
 that
 would
 directly
 guide
 the
 translation
 of
 sustainable
 development
 for
 forests
 from
18 
(Forum
on
Forests,
2010)

18
 international
 policy
 talk
 into
 practical
 land
 management
 strategies.
19 
 
 One
 such
 association
 grew
 from
 a
 1990
 gathering
 of
 European
 ministerial
 leaders
 in
Strasbourg,
Germany
and
became
aptly
known
as
the
Ministerial
Conference
for
the
Protection
 of
 Forests
 in
 Europe.
 
 Over
 the
 past
 two
 decades,
 they
 have
 adopted
 nineteen
 resolutions
 through
 five
 Pan‐European
 conferences
 for
 advancing
 the
 understanding
 and
 practical
 implementation
 of
 SFM
 throughout
 the
 continent.
20
Across
the
Atlantic,
another
partnership
formed
and
gathered
under
the
auspices
of
 the
 Montreal
 Process,
 which
 began
 in
 1994
 through
 the
 collaborative
 efforts
 of
 twelve
non‐European
countries
that
sought
internationally
agreed
upon
C&I
for
the
 sustainable
 management
 of
 temperate
 and
 boreal
 forests.
21 
 
 Member
 countries
 to
 this
 Process
 are
 located
 in
 five
 of
 the
 seven
 continents
 and
 represent
 90%
 of
 the
 planet’s
 temperate
 and
 boreal
 forests,
 equal
 to
 approximately
 60%
 of
 total
 forest
 cover.
22 
 
 Their
 multilateral
 discussions
 culminated
 in
 the
 1995
 “Santiago
Declaration”,
a
statement
outlining
the
partnership’s
commitment
to
implementing
Agenda
 21
 of
 the
 1992
 Earth
 Summit,
 expanding
 the
 concept
 of
 sustainability
 to
 incorporate
 resources
 beyond
 timber
 and
 to
 generally
 “provide
 a
 common
 understanding
 of
 what
 is
 meant
 by
 sustainable
 forest
 management.” 23 
 
 From
 the
 private
sector,
market‐based
certification
schemes,
the
Forest
Stewardship
Council
(FSC)
 being
 the
 most
 recognized
 and
 active
 certifying
 organization,
 additionally
19 
(McDonald
&
Lane,
2004)
20 
(Forest,
2009)
21 
Argentina,
Australia,
Canada,
Chile,
China,
Japan,
Republic
of
Korea,
Mexico,
New
Zealand,
Russian
Federation,
United
States
of
America,
Uruguay
22 
(Montreal
Process,
1998‐2005)
23 
(Montreal
Process,
1998)

19
 contributed
heavily
to
the
establishment
of
SFM
standards
and
continue
to
inform
 international
policy
and
sustainable
forestland
management
across
the
globe.
1.2
What
Does
it
Mean,
Exactly?

Breaking
Down
the
SFM
Concept
Sustainable
 Forest
 Management
 fundamentally
 represents
 a
 significantly
 expanded
 conceptualization
 of
 the
 interaction
 between
 the
 multiple
 needs
 of
 modern
society
and
the
resources
that
forests
across
the
planet
can
supply
to
satisfy
 them.
24 
 
 According
 to
 forest
 economist
 Shashi
 Kant,
 “the
 concept
 of
 SFM
 is
 an
 outcome
of
dynamism
in
the
human
value
system,
and
a
reflection
of
social,
cultural,
 economic
and
environmental
conditions
of
the
late
twentieth
and
early
twenty‐first
 century.” 25 
 
 Also
 referred
 to
 as
 “ecosystems
 management”
 and
 “adaptive
 management”,
 SFM
 approaches
 forest
 resource
 use
 holistically
 and
 through
 a
 flexible,
 multidisciplinary
 framework
 that
 attempts
 to
 operate
 wholly
 within
 the
 ecological
 capacities
 of
 the
 forest
 while
 maximizing
 socio‐cultural
 benefits
 in
 a
 profitable
way.
26
This
 shift
 is
 in
 direct
 response
 to
 the
 forest
 industry’s
 conventional
 management
 strategy
 that
 solely
 concentrated
 on
 maximizing
 wood
 production,
 referred
to
by
Wang
as
the
“timber‐dominant
management
paradigm.” 27 

According
 to
this
perspective,
the
market
value
of
forest
systems
rested
in
the
standing
volume
 of
available
timber
and
little
else.
28 

The
fastest
and
most
profitable
financial
return
 was
 complete
 deforestation.
 
 Clean
 water,
 biodiversity,
 hydrological
 cycles
 and
24 
(Wang,
2004)
25 
(Kant,
2004,
p.
197)
26 
(Hickey,
2008;
McDonald
&
Lane,
2004)
27 
(Wang,
2004)
28 
(Smith,
Larson,
Kelty,
&
Ashton,
1997)

20
 climate
regulation,
not
to
mention
indigenous
forest
community
wellbeing,
had
no
 tangible,
 market‐determined
 price.
 
 The
 negative
 externalities
 associated
 with
 a
 strictly
 timber‐guided
 management
 objective
 did
 not
 find
 expression
 in
 the
 operation’s
economic
analysis
and
were
therefore
ignored.

However,
as
the
world
 began
to
demand
an
integration
of
ecological
and
social
values
into
the
economically
 driven
 forest
 management
 regime,
 the
 conventional
 system
 of
 single‐resource
 management
began
to
fall
out
of
favor.

As
Wang
and
Wilson
state,
Its
[SFM]
goal
is
to
seek
the
co‐existence
of
healthy
forest
ecosystems
 and
harmonious
human
communities.

The
nature
of
SFM
is
to
respect
 a
 range
 of
 dynamic
 conditions
 instead
 of
 a
 single,
 static
 target,
 and
 there
 is
 growing
 recognition
 that
 SFM
 is
 characterized
 by
 a
 shift
 in
 focus
from
timber
to
a
wider
spectrum
of
the
forest.
29
The
 transition
 from
 widespread
 stand
 removal
 and
 forest
 clearing
 as
 the
 dominant
 silvicultural
 prescription
 to
 the
 implementation
 of
 Sustainable
 Forest
Management
 principles
 as
 outlined
 above
 was
 not
 direct,
 and
 indeed
 is
 far
 from
 complete.
 
 A
 precursor
 to
 SFM
 is
 the
 concept
 of
 Sustainable
 Timber
 Management
(STM),
also
known
as
Sustained
Timber
Yield
Management
(STYM),
which
improves
 upon
the
conventional
paradigm
through
its
enlarged
focus
on
long‐term
objectives.
Although
 it
 still
 concentrates
 mainly
 on
 a
 single
 resource,
 STYM
 refers
 to
 a
 management
 plan
 that
 ensures
 a
 non‐declining
 supply
 of
 the
 desired
 timber
 products
 into
 perpetuity.
 
 While
 the
 various
 technical
 options
 for
 achieving
 this
 objective
are
beyond
the
scope
of
this
paper
and
hotly
contested
amongst
applied
 forest
ecologists,
the
strength
of
this
approach
over
the
previous
lies
in
the
simple
 recognition
that
the
forest
resources
must
be
treated
in
a
way
that
will
allow
them
29 
(Wang
&
Wilson,
2007,
p.
744)

21
 to
produce
repeatedly
into
the
future.

Timber
supplies
are
maintained,
damage
to
 the
 residual
 stand
 is
 minimized
 and
 silvicultural
 prescriptions
 aim
 to
 increase
 growth
 rates
 and
 accumulation
 of
 merchantable
 biomass.
 
 The
 emphasis
 on
 long‐ term
land
use
planning
directly
compliments
the
sustainable
development
language
 in
which
SFM
as
a
concept
was
forming.

The
Brundtland
Report
candidly
addressed
 the
 need
 to
 think
 inter‐generationally
 as
 the
 world’s
 natural
 resources
 are
 conserved
 and
 sustainably
 managed
 for
 both
 today
 and
 the
 future.
 
 As
 forest
 systems
 generally
 require
 multi‐decade
 growth
 cycles
 to
 reach
 stages
 of
 maturity,
 the
SYTM
focus
on
long‐term
planning
promised,
in
theory,
to
deliver
a
component
of
the
paradigm
for
which
 Our
Common
Future 
appealed.
Thus,
SFM
is
best
understood
 in
contrast 
 to 
conventional
forest
management,
 representing
 a
 forest
 conservation
 ethos
 built
 upon
 a
 much
 larger
 range
 of
 ecological
 and
 socio‐cultural
 interactions
 and
 processes
 than
 ever
 before.
 
 The
 forest,
from
this
perspective,
is
no
longer
valued
solely
for
the
timber
in
its
trees
but
 becomes
a
“multiproduct
asset.” 30 

A
diversification
of
forest
benefits
beyond
wood
 requires
a
“diversified
mode
of
activity”
for
the
sustained
management
of
multiple
 resources.
31 

As
important
as
recognizing
the
environmental
functions
of
forests
that
 were
hitherto
ignored,
such
as
biodiversity,
water
management
and
carbon
cycling,
 is
the
acknowledgement
of
multi‐stakeholder
participation
in
SFM.

The
expansion
 of
 ecological
 considerations
 widens
 the
 formerly
 narrow
 vision
 to
 encompass
 resource
 users
 and
 owners
 beyond
 industry.
 
 This
 inclusion
 of
 multiple
 levels
 of
30 
(Oliver,
2003,
p.
13)
31 
(Wang,
2004,
p.
207)

22
 participatory
management
and
ownership
gives
SFM
what
Wang
and
Wilson
call
a
 pluralistic
 perspective
 to
 forestry.
32 
 
 Whereas
 conventional
 logging
 operated
 according
 to
 the
 vision
 of
 one
 commercial
 landowner,
 SFM
 functions
 dynamically
 and
 cooperatively,
 crafting
 management
 plans
 based
 upon
 the
 input
 of
 multiple
 resource
users
interested
in
diverse
forest‐derived
benefits,
both
consumptive
and
 non‐consumptive.

SFM
therefore
involves
much
more
complexity,
with
its
success
 dependent
 on
 the
 level
 of
 its
 flexibility
 as
 social
 demands
 change
 and
 evolve
 over
 time.

Conventional
management
is
static
and
timber‐focused,
whereas
SFM
must
be
 able
to
constantly
adapt
itself
alongside
multiple
interests.

As
defining
management
 objectives
 increasingly
 assumes
 a
 more
 pluralistic
 process
 with
 a
 variety
 of
 participants,
 SFM
 signifies
 a
 more
 socially
 accountable
 and
 responsive
 paradigm,
 one
 that
 has
 a
 larger
 capacity
 to
 extend
 greater
 benefits
 to
 a
 greater
 portion
 of
 society
while
operating
within
local
ecological
parameters.
1.3
Trying
to
Make
it
Work:
Operationalizing
a
Definition
in
Progress
Whereas
 multiple
 state‐led
 initiatives,
 private
 sector
 efforts
 and
 international
 conferences
 have
 most
 definitely
 expanded
 the
 boundaries
 of
 SFM,
 both
theoretically
and
operationally,
consensus
amongst
all
parties
truly
only
exists
 in
 one
 arena:
 SFM
 has
 no
 agreed
 upon
 definition.
 
 This
 comes
 as
 little
 surprise
 considering
 the
 pluralistic
 framework
 in
 which
 the
 concept
 evolves
 and
 finds
 expression,
especially
when
SFM
principles
are
applied
across
the
globe
in
a
variety
 of
 extremely
 different
 ecological,
 socio‐cultural
 and
 economic
 environments.
 
 Yes,
 overlap
 exists
 in
 many
 definitions
 and
 within
 the
 various
 Criteria
 and
 Indicator
32 
(Wang
&
Wilson,
2007)

23
 standards
that
have
been
developed.

Yet
this
very
nature
of
SFM
has
been
a
major
 challenge
 in
 its
 successful
 implementation
 within
 both
 the
 land
 use
 and
 policy‐ making
communities.

A
1999
FAO
publication
entitled
“Beyond
Sustainable
Forest
Management”
 states
 that
 “references
 to
 SFM
 are
 universally
 ambiguous
 and
 vague.” 33 

Sen
Wang
directly
states,
“it
is
my
conviction
that
there
is
no
uniform,
fit‐ for‐all
 path
 to
 Sustainable
 Forest
 Management.” 34 
 
 And
 yet
 both
 the
 scientific
 and
 policy‐oriented
communities
are
pursuing
ways
to
define
SFM
in
their
own
contexts
and
 strengthen
 all
 levels
 of
 capacity
 to
 bring
 about
 its
 fruition,
 from
 the
 Forest
Management
Unit
(FMU)
to
the
conference
halls
of
the
United
Nations.
Lengthy
 pursuit
 of
 a
 consensus
 definition
 of
 sustainable
 forest
 management
 is
 probably
 more
 of
 an
 impediment
 towards
 implementation
than
any
limitation
in
our
knowledge
of
the
ecological
 and
social
functions
of
forests…
[and]
should
not
be
used
as
an
excuse
for
inaction.
35
Several
 examples
 exist
 of
 this
 move
 forward
 in
 realizing
 SFM
 principles
 on
 the
 ground,
 despite
 the
 lack
 of
 complete
 agreement,
 and
 illustrate
 the
 progress
 being
made
by
various
forest
sector
players.

According
to
the
FAO’s
2007
 State
of
 the
 World’s
 Forest 
 report,
 “sustainable
 forest
 management
 refers
 to
 the
 use
 and
 conservation
 of
 forests
 for
 the
 benefit
 of
 present
 and
 future
 generations.” 36 
 
 This
 definition,
 though
 based
 upon
 a
 detailed
 set
 of
 thematic
 elements
 taken
 from
 multiple
 international
 consultations 37 ,
 has
 merely
 taken
 the
 language
 of
 the
33 
(Ljungman,
et
al.,
1999)
34 
(Wang,
2004,
p.
211)
35 
(Ljungman,
et
al.,
1999,
p.
4)
36 
( State
of
the
World's
Forests
2007 ,
2007,
p.
p.3)
37 
(1)Extent
of
forest
resources,
(2)Biological
Diversity,
(3)Forest
health
and
vitality,
(4)Productive
 functions
of
forest
resources,
(5)Protective
functions
of
forest
resources,
(6)Socio‐economic
 functions.

(FAO,
2006)

24
Brundtland
 Report’s
 sustainable
 development
 description
 and
 substituted
 in
“sustainable
 forest
 management.”
 
 Unfortunately,
 the
 language
 omits
 many
 of
 the
 specifications
 that
 have
 opened
 the
 concept
 to
 fierce
 criticisms
 from
 those
 who
 believe
 that
 SFM
 is
 a
 generic
 and
 misleading
 term
 that
 often
 labels
 very
 unsustainable
operations
ecologically
and
socially
sensitive.
Adding
more
depth
and
scope
to
this
developing
management
ethos,
IUFRO
 states
that
SFM
“is
a
system
of
forestry
practices
that
aims
to
maintain
and
enhance
 the
 economic,
 environmental
 and
 social
 values
 of
 all
 types
 of
 forests.” 38 
 
 This
 definition
highlights
the
various
categories
of
forest
values
that
must
be
considered
 and
 adds
 language
 to
 move
 beyond
 just
 the
 notion
 of
 “use”
 and
 rather
 promote
 maintenance
and
enhancement
for
sustainability.

In
July
2009,
the
United
Nations
Forum
on
Forests
Secretariat
released
official
language
on
SFM
in
its
preparation
for
 the
 UNFCCC
 15 th 
 Conference
 of
 the
 Parties
 in
 Copenhagen.
 
 A
 blend
 of
 the
 two
 previous
definitions,
this
allows
the
parties
to
have
an
agreed
upon
description
from
 which
to
base
further
agreements
on
SFM
as
a
component
to
a
Post‐Kyoto
Protocol
 mechanism.
39
The
ITTO,
through
initiating
an
extraordinary
amount
of
trainings,
teachings,
 research,
development
programs
and
distributing
publications,
has
perhaps
created
 one
 of
 the
 most
 comprehensive
 and
 practical
 definitions
 of
 Sustainable
 Forest
Management:
38 
( Adaptation
of
Forests
and
People
to
Climate
Change­
A
Global
Assessment
Report ,
2009,
p.
p.9)
39 
“Sustainable
forest
management
as
a
dynamic
and
evolving
concept
aims
to
maintain
and
enhance
 the
economic,
social
and
environmental
value
of
all
types
of
forests,
for
the
benefit
of
present
and
 future
generations.”

25
The
 process
 of
 managing
 forests
 to
 achieve
 one
 or
 more
 clearly
 specified
objectives
of
management
with
regard
to
the
production
of
a
 continuous
 flow
 of
 desired
 forest
 products
 and
 services
 without
 undue
 reduction
 of
 its
 inherent
 values
 and
 future
 productivity
 and
 without
 undue
 undesirable
 effects
 on
 the
 physical
 and
 social
 environment.
40
The
 strength
 of
 this
 definition
 is
 that
 it
 provides
 a
 much
 more
 concrete
 and
 functional
 framework
 than
 those
 described
 above,
 which
 can
 be
 applied
 to
 the
 actual
 creation
 and
 implementation
 of
 field‐based
 forest
 management
 operations
 along
comprehensive
sustainable
principles.
1.4

Exploring
the
Flaws:

SFM
is
Not
Without
its
Critiques
A
 comprehensive
 understanding
 of
 Sustainable
 Forest
 Management
 principles
also
requires
an
investigation
into
the
various
criticisms
that
have
been
 elaborated
 by
 many
 different
 parties
 engaged
 in
 this
 discussion.
 
 Not
 so
 much
 a
 critique
 as
 a
 concern
 is
 the
 realization
 that
 the
 long‐term
 nature
 of
 SFM
 leads
 to
 numerous
 difficulties
 in
 its
 overall
 assessment.
 
 The
 predictions
 of
 a
 management
 plan
 for
 multiple
 harvests
 of
 various
 resources
 within
 a
 forest
 that
 often
 requires
 many
decades
to
respond
to
disturbance
are
just
that:
predictions.

The
concept
of
Panarchy
 has
 been
 employed
 in
 the
 context
 of
 forests
 more
 frequently
 to
 refer
 to
 this
unpredictability
in
the
dynamic
patterns
of
flux
and
renewal
of
forest
resources
 following
disturbances,
and
impacts
of
management
regimes
may
differ
drastically
 from
 what
 was
 originally
 projected.
41 
 
 In
 addition,
 the
 Criteria
 and
 Indicator
 standards
being
developed
to
address
this
challenge
constantly
evolve
and
require
 large
amounts
of
time
and
resources.

As
discussed
above,
these
have
only
recently
40 
( Revised
ITTO
Criteria
and
Indicactors
for
the
Sustainable
Management
of
Tropical
Forests ,
2005,
p.
P.36)
41 
(Wang,
2004)

26
 been
reaching
a
level
of
quality
for
field
implementation
and
much
waits
to
be
seen
 in
terms
of
their
ability
to
successfully
measure
the
level
of
sustainability
that
has
 been
achieved.
This
reference
to
sustainability
also
generates
criticisms,
as
the
concept
itself
 often
 is
 unclear
 and
 hotly
 contested.
 
 The
 question
 always
 goes
 back
 to,
 “what
 is
 being
sustained?”

This
could
mean
commercial
timber
volumes,
non‐timber
forest
 products,
biodiversity
habitat,
clean
water
resources
or
a
combination
among
these
 and
many
others.

The
question
that
immediately
follows
is
“for
whom?,”
in
terms
of
 which
the
pluralistic
framework
of
SFM
can
become
extremely
complicated.

While
a
 balance
between
multiple
interests
sounds
extremely
appealing
in
theory,
the
actual
 balancing
 act
 often
 creates
 much
 conflict
 amongst
 the
 participating
 parties.
 
 As
 benefits
are
weighed
against
costs
in
formulating
management
objectives,
one
set
of
 interests
will
always
be
favored
more
than
another.

“Inherent
to
this
definition
is
 that
 SFM
 will
 mean
 different
 things
 to
 different
 people,
 at
 different
 scales
 of
 management
and
at
different
time
periods.” 42 

Pearce
and
colleagues
describe
this
as
 a
process
of
achieving
“optimal
use”
which
contains
obvious
problems
of
defining
of
 what
and
for
whom.
43 

They
respond
to
this
challenge
by
suggesting
compensation
 to
parties
who,
in
effect,
lose
out
in
the
determination
of
what
exactly
is
optimal.

As
 the
current
international
focus
steadily
hones
in
on
carbon
sequestration
for
climate
 change
 mitigation,
 investigating
 the
 management
 approaches
 that
 maximize
 the
 sustainability
 of
 this
 resource
 and
 the
 parties
 that
 benefit
 most
 will
 be
 of
 critical
42 
(Hickey,
2008,
p.
109)
43 
(Pearce,
Putz,
&
Vanclay,
2003,
p.
232)

27
importance
in
expanding
the
scope
of
SFM
as
well
as
determining
its
impact
on
both
 human
and
non‐human
communities.
Another
angle
from
which
SFM
has
received
criticism
is
its
alleged
continued
 biases
 towards
 the
 conventional
 timber
 management
 paradigm
 of
 the
 past.
44
Various
 non‐governmental
 organizations
 and
 public
 interest
 watchdogs,
 including
Global
 Witness
 and
 the
 online
 media
 source
 REDD‐Monitor,
 assert
 that
 SFM
 is
 a
 smokescreen
 for
 selective
 timber
 harvesting
 and
 general
 forest
 degradation
 practices.
45 
 
 It
 allows
 non‐sustainable
 forest
 management
 activities
 to
 continue
 because
 it
 has
 a
 weak
 and
 broad
 definitional
 framework
 and
 operates
 in
 many
 countries
 where
 very
 little
 government
 support
 or
 institutional
 capacity
 exists
 to
 enforce
any
set
of
sustainability
standards.

Indeed,
Chadwick
Dearing
Oliver
of
the
Global
 Institute
 of
 Sustainable
 Forestry
 speaks
 from
 an
 obviously
 wood‐centric
 perspective
while
discussing
the
productive
qualities
of
the
forest
in
the
context
of
 sustainable
forestry,
indicating
that
timber
can
still
remain
as
a
central
priority.
46
One
basis
of
criticism
that
may
seem
unexpected
comes
from
an
indictment
 of
SFM
in
regards
to
its
potential
to
have
negative
ecological
ramifications.

Rice
and
Gullison,
in
studying
the
ecology
of
Mahogany
( Swietenia
macrophylla
King )
and
the
 economics
 of
 its
 harvesting
 in
 the
 Bolivian
 Amazon,
 assert
 that
 SFM
 may
 actually
 provide
incentive
to
move
beyond
extremely
selective
logging
for
one
commercial
44 
(Aplet,
1995)
45 
(Lang,
2009)
46 
(Oliver,
2003)

28
 species
 and
 in
 fact
 increase
 more
 intensive
 harvesting
 at
 the
 landscape
 level.
47
While
 conventional
 harvesting
 for
 Mahogany
 is
 largely
 unsustainable
 due
 to
 this
 species’
 particular
 life
 characteristics,
 the
 damage
 done
 to
 the
 forest
 is
 relatively
 small
 and
 localized
 as
 compared
 to
 a
 SFM
 regime
 that
 would
 potentially
 impact
 a
 much
 larger
 area
 and
 target
 a
 variety
 of
 previously
 ignored
 species.
 
 The
 authors
 offer
rebuttals
to
the
arguments
that
strengthened
land
tenure
rights,
mixed
species
 approaches
 and
 certification
 will
 increase
 the
 success
 of
 SFM,
 stating
 that
“sustainability
is,
in
fact,
a
poor
guide
to
the
environmental
harm
caused
by
timber
 operations.
 
 Likewise,
 sustainable
 logging
 does
 not
 necessarily
 guarantee
 a
 low
 environmental
 toll.” 48 
 
 Although
 criticisms
 to
 SFM
 on
 ecological
 grounds
 are
 not
 abundant,
careful
attention
must
be
granted
to
ensure
such
perverse
incentives
are
not
created.
Yet
probably
the
most
widely
discussed
and
researched
area
of
concern
and
 criticism
 to
 the
 concept
 of
 SFM
 focuses
 on
 its
 economic
 inferiority
 to
 the
 unsustainable
 forest
 management
 practices
 that
 dominate
 the
 tropical
 timber
 industry.
49 

As
traditional
methods
of
cost‐benefit
analyses
operate
today,
the
most
 profitable
forestland
management
option
is
to
cut
all
commercial
species
to
receive
 full
 monetary
 value
 immediately
 and
 maximize
 profits
 by
 avoiding
 mitigation
 responsibilities,
such
as
site
preparation,
replanting,
or
watercourse
protection,
to
 name
 a
 few.
 
 Critiques
 point
 to
 a
 variety
 of
 economic
 factors
 (high
 discount
 rates
47 
(Rice
&
Gullison,
1997)
48 
(Rice
&
Gullison,
1997,
p.
44)
49 
(Kant,
2004;
Ljungman,
et
al.,
1999;
Pearce,
et
al.,
2003;
Rice
&
Gullison,
1997;
Wang,
2004;
Wang
&
Wilson,
2007)

29
and
 low
 timber
 costs),
 ecological
 factors
 (slow
 growth
 rates)
 and
 institutional
 factors
 (weak
 governance,
 high
 levels
 of
 corruption
 and
 a
 lack
 of
 enforced
 land
 tenure
policies)
that
all
combine
to
maintain
SFM
as
the
perpetually
less‐profitable
 management
 paradigm.
 
 However,
 proponents
 of
 this
 emerging
 discourse
 acknowledge
 this
 shortcoming
 and
 in
 turn
 reject
 the
 dismissal
 of
 SFM
 on
 these
 grounds
by
calling
for
a
new
economic
approach
to
natural
assets.


They
support
 the
expansion
of
the
concept
of
forest
values
and
assert
the
profitability
of
SFM
over
conventional
 logging
 when
 prices
 reflect
 the
 true
 values
 of
 a
 forest’s
 multiple
 resources.

As
will
be
discussed
below,
carbon
may
take
the
lead
role
in
this
shift
in
 economic
 practice
 as
 it
 becomes
 an
 ever
 more
 important
 component
 worth
 conserving.

30
CHAPTER
2
SECTION
2.1:
BUILDING
REDD
OUT
OF
THE
CONSERVATION
AND
DEVELOPMENT
DISCOURSES
2.1.1
 The
 Influence
 of
 Shared
 Histories­
 Preparing
 the
 Stage
 for
 REDD
 as
 an
Expression
of
Global
Governance
In
order
to
situate
the
maturing
REDD
framework
into
the
current
discourses
 of
both
conservation
and
development,
an
examination
of
their
ideologies
and
past
 expressions
 will
 provide
 clarity
 and
 context
 to
 the
 forces
 that
 have
 given
 it
 such
 international
 prominence.
 
 Significant
 shifts
 in
 governance
 have
 taken
 place
 throughout
the
histories
of
both
conservation
and
development
theory
and
practice,
 and
 as
 observed
 by
 Levine,
 along
 very
 similar
 lines.
50 
 
 Colonial‐era
 conservation
 approaches,
 well
 exemplified
 in
 the
 fortress
 conservation
 models
 of
 African
 Game
Reserves
 and
 British
 Raj‐controlled
 Forestlands
 in
 India,
 operated
 on
 systems
 of
 control
and
governance
from
a
distance.

The
seat
of
the
Empire
ruled
the
landscape
 from
 overseas,
 imposing
 foreign
 rules
 and
 regulations
 that
 dispossessed
 local
 peoples
from
access
and
resource
use
while
serving
the
interests
of
a
few
colonial
 elites.

“Development”
during
this
period
of
imperialistic
rule,
as
defined
by
progress
 towards
 civilized
 living
 and
 Western
 traditions
 and
 ethics,
 did
 not
 extend
 to
 the
“brutish”
 inhabitants
 of
 the
 non‐Western
 world.
 
 Resources
 were
 extracted
 and
 processed
 for
 the
 benefit
 and
 economic
 growth
 of
 the
 colonial
 core,
 and
 any
 infrastructural
investments
in
the
periphery
colonies
largely
meant
to
serve
foreign
 interests.
 
 Similarly,
 conservation
 of
 wildlife
 and
 landscapes
 stopped
 short
 of
 acknowledging
 the
 presence
 and
 histories
 of
 local
 people.
 
 It
 was
 a
 duty
 of
 the
50 
(Levine,
2002)

31
“civilized,
 educated
 West”
 and
 could
 not
 be
 trusted
 in
 the
 hands
 of
 undeveloped,
 ignorant
 communities.
51 
 
 The
 creation
 of
 the
 Society
 for
 the
 Preservation
 of
 the
Fauna
 of
 the
 Empire
 (SPFE)
 in
 1937
 provides
 an
 example
 of
 this
 perspective
 that
 nature
itself
was
owned
by
the
Crown,
its
conservation
was
a
responsibility
of
the
 colonial
power
and
that
control
from
overseas
was
far
more
effective,
and
desirable,
 than
management
by
local
inhabitants.
52 

Conservation
and
development
practices
 both
unabashedly
served
the
ruling
foreign
interests,
first
and
foremost.
Following
the
end
of
World
War
II
in
1945
and
the
creation
of
the
Bretton
Woods
 Institutions,
 development
 of
 the
 Third
 World
 became
 an
 international
 priority.
 
 Ideological
 motivations,
 however,
 maintained
 the
 pervasive
 colonial
 perspective
 of
 economic
 and
 cultural
 dominance,
 therefore
 continuing
 the
 exploitation
 of
 poor
 nations
 for
 the
 growth
 and
 expansion
 of
 the
 industrialized
North.
 
 Modernization
 theorists
 attempted
 to
 explain
 the
 growing
 divide
 between
 rich
and
poor
countries
as
the
latter’s
inability
to
shed
out‐dated
cultural
baggage,
 which
prevents
economic
growth
and
the
“improvement
in
human
well‐being.” 53 

W.
W.
 Rostow’s
 influential
 “Five
 Stages
 of
 Growth”
 outlined
 a
 linear
 path
 towards
 progress
 and
 development
 that
 involved
 a
 “take‐off”
 from
 traditional
 social
(dis)functioning
 and
 a
 drive
 towards
 modernity
 and
 high
 mass
 consumption,
 as
 seen
in
the
developed
North.
54 

What
this
philosophy
accomplished,
however,
was
 an
institutionally
supported
destruction
of
local
economies
and
social
structures
at
 the
behest
of
foreign
business
and
colonial
governments,
all
in
the
name
of
progress.
51 
(Igoe,
2004)
52 
(Levine,
2002)
53 
(Harrison,
1985)
54 
(Rostow,
1960)

32
Conservation
 efforts
 operated
 according
 to
 a
 similar
 discourse
 on
 the
 backward
 nature
 of
 traditional
 societies
 and
 the
 need
 for
 developed
 country
 intervention.
From
the
Strictly
Protected
Areas
in
South
Asia
and
Wildlife
Parks
in
Southeastern
Africa
to
the
language
of
the
1964
Wilderness
Preservation
Act
in
the
United
States
 of
America,
native
communities
and
their
traditional
land
use
practices
were
seen
as
 barriers
 to
 effective
 conservation
 efforts
 and
 were
 subsequently
 displaced
 to
 achieve
conservation
goals.
The
 three
 decades
 from
 the
 1960s
 to
 the
 beginning
 of
 the
 1990s
 saw
 significant
 restructuring
 of
 the
 global
 political
 and
 economic
 order.
 
 Official
 colonialism
 in
 Africa
 came
 to
 an
 end
 as
 movements
 for
 national
 sovereignty
 and
 identity
spread
throughout
the
developing
world.

State‐led
development
strategies
 were
 created
 in
 reaction
 to
 the
 culturally,
 economically
 and
 politically
 destructive
 practices
promoted
by
Modernization
theorists
and
attempted,
in
various
fashions,
 to
 establish
 thriving
 local
 economic
 structures
 and
 social
 support
 systems.
 
 While
 certainly
influenced
by
local
contexts,
multiple
examples
exist
that
prove
this
to
be
a
 global
phenomenon.

The
1960s
has
been
called
the
“golden
age”
of
Central
America,
 with
Costa
Rica
enjoying
an
extensive
growth
in
state‐sponsored
social
services
and
 industry.
55 
 
 Import‐Substitution
 Industries
 in
 many
 African
 countries
 trusted
 the
 state
 to
 create
 nationally
 appropriate
 and
 lucrative
 domestic
 markets
 for
 growth
 and
development.

This
rise
of
state
control
represented
a
clear
break
from
foreign
 rule,
 and
 extended
 into
 conservation
 initiatives
 throughout
 the
 world.
 
 Wildlife
 tourism
in
Africa
came
to
be
considered
on
par
with
other
export
commodities
with
55 
(Edelman,
1999)

33
 direct
benefits
to
the
country’s
economy
and
was
heavily
supported
by
government.
In
 1969,
 Costa
 Rica
 passed
 the
 Ley
 Forestal
 (Forestry
 Law),
 which
 “established
 a
 system
 to
 designate
 and
 administer
 protected
 areas,
 such
 as
 national
 parks
 and
 monuments,
 that
 would
 be
 off‐limits
 to
 forestry
 and
 agriculture.” 56 
 
 Across
 the
 globe,
 the
 decades
 following
 Indian
 independence
 in
 1947
 saw
 a
 large
 increase
 in
 the
 scope
 and
 authority
 of
 the
 state‐run
 Forest
 Department
 in
 terms
 of
 land
 management
and
forest
conservation.
However,
the
majority
of
Third
World
countries
promoting
state
sovereignty
 and
 national
 development
 objectives
 lacked
 many
 of
 the
 internal
 capabilities
 and
 political
support
necessary
to
compete
in
an
increasingly
globalized
world.

Much
of
 their
 economic
 development
 agenda
 was
 tied
 to
 increasing
 foreign
 loans
 which
 played
 a
 significant
 role
 in
 the
 global
 financial
 crisis
 of
 the
 early
 1980s,
 where
 various
 market
 shocks
 destroyed
 many
 of
 the
 developing
 world’s
 undiversified
 export
 economies
 and
 led
 to
 unmanageable
 levels
 of
 debt
 and
 international
 loan
 defaults.
 
 Structural
 Adjustment
 Programs
 (SAPs)
 instituted
 by
 the
 International
Monetary
 Fund
 aimed
 at
 stabilizing
 financial
 markets
 and
 guiding
 Third
 World
 nations
 along
 industrialized
 development.
 
 These
 large
 loans
 required
 political,
 economic
 and
 social
 restructuring
 according
 to
 the
 neoliberal
 principle
 of
 free‐ market
 access,
 creating
 what
 development
 scholars
 such
 as
 Dos
 Santos
 and
Wallerstein
 termed
 Dependency.
 
 Development
 processes
 as
 supported
 by
 international
funding
agencies,
according
to
this
school
of
thought,
not
only
further
56 
(Evans,
1999,
p.
49)

34
 impoverished
 Third
 World
 nations
 but
 in
 the
 process
 literally
 forced
 their
 economies
to
become
dependent
on
those
of
the
industrialized
North.
57
The
 rapid
 rate
 of
 industrial
 privatization
 and
 increase
 in
 Foreign
 Direct
Investment
(FDI)
that
took
place
in
the
1980s
as
a
result
of
the
implementation
of
SAPs
 had
 significant
 consequences
 on
 the
 conservation
 of
 natural
 resources.
 
 As
 state
sovereignty
and
control
decreased,
private
industry
swiftly
took
advantage
of
 increasing
opportunities
for
new
market
access
to
large
reserves
of
lucrative
natural
 resources.
 
 In
 Latin
 America,
 foreign
 export
 markets
 for
 beef,
 bananas,
 coffee,
 pineapples
 and
 various
 non‐traditional
 commodities,
 largely
 owned
 and
 run
 by
 foreign
 business
 interests,
 led
 to
 wide
 scale
 forest
 loss,
 land
 degradation
 and
 ecological
 disruption.
 
 As
 an
 example,
 Costa
 Rica
 lost
 65%
 of
 its
 forests
 due
 to
 uncontrolled
timber
harvesting
and
land
conversion
to
pastures
for
export‐oriented
 cattle
 production
 between
 1950
 and
 1990.
58 
 
 Not
 only
 does
 this
 have
 serious
 consequences
for
a
nation’s
natural
capital,
but
as
suggested
by
Durham,
creates
a
 cycle
 of
 impoverishment
 of
 local
 communities
 that
 reinforces
 a
 negative
 feedback
 loop
 for
 increased
 ecological
 degradation,
 human
 displacement
 and
 deepening
poverty.
59 
 
 Erosion
 of
 state
 control
 through
 the
 economic
 reforms
 imposed
 by
 international
 development
 agencies
 created
 unsustainable
 industries
 that
 supported
foreign
markets,
further
impoverished
local
communities
and
intensified
 environmental
damage.
57 
(dos
Santos,
1970;
Wallerstein,
1975)
58 
(Edelman,
1999)
59 
(Durham,
1994)

35
In
 response
 to
 the
 growing
 awareness
 that
 structural
 adjustment
 and
 neoliberal
policies
were
not
adequately
addressing
global
poverty,
but
were
actually
 causing
it
to
worsen,
the
global
development
discourse
again
shifted
in
the
1990s
to
 one
focusing
on
the
importance
of
locally‐driven
and
implemented
processes.

The
 conservation
discourse
followed
on
its
heels,
as
evidenced
by
both
the
1983
World
Commission
on
Environment
and
Development,
with
its
historic
Brundtland
Report
 published
 in
 1987
 and
 the
 United
 Nations
 Conference
 on
 Environment
 and
Development,
 known
 more
 popularly
 as
 the
 1992
 Rio
 Earth
 Summit.
 
 Both
 international
 initiatives
 sought
 to
 bring
 these
 two
 discourses
 together,
 acknowledging
 that
 one
 cannot
 be
 achieved
 without
 the
 other
 and
 development
 must
 follow
 sustainable
 principles.
 
 “Sustainable
 development”
 became
 the
 new
 catchword,
and
has
subsequently
created
the
space
necessary
for
the
current
REDD
 initiative
to
develop.
Non‐governmental
 organizations
 officially
 became
 recognized
 as
 major
 players
 in
 international
 conservation
 and
 development
 initiatives
 and
 were
 welcomed
participants
at
the
Earth
Summit
in
Rio
de
Janeiro.

They
began
asserting
 their
 positions
 as
 locally
 based
 and
 more
 sensitive
 to
 the
 needs
 of
 communities,
 which
 had
 eluded
 the
 international
 development
 agencies
 and
 largely
 resulted
 in
 many
 of
 their
 projects’
 failures.
 
 In
 this
 capacity,
 many
 of
 the
 previous
 responsibilities
of
the
state
effectively
transferred
to
an
ever‐growing
civil
society,
 which
 aimed
 to
 fill
 the
 gaps
 that
 the
 existing
 governance
 structure
 left
 empty.
60
Development
 agencies
 increasingly
 sought
 partnerships
 with
 NGOs
 that
 had
 the
60 
(Levine,
2002)

36
 social
capital
and
abilities
to
implement
projects
on
a
community
scale,
avoiding
the
 harsh
criticisms
of
their
past,
unsuccessful
approaches.
In
 conformity
 with
 the
 merging
 of
 the
 development
 and
 conservation
 industries,
 Community‐Based
 Natural
 Resource
 Management
 (CBNRM)
 and
Integrated
 Conservation
 and
 Development
 Programs
 (ICDP)
 became
 very
 popular
 approaches
 to
 achieve
 the
 goals
 of
 both
 agendas.
61 
 
 For
 example,
 Joint
 Forest
Management
 in
 India
 began
 in
 1990
 as
 a
 response
 to
 ever
 increasing
 tensions
 between
the
Forest
Department
and
local
villages
and
the
continual
degradation
of
 forestlands.

By
forming
Joint
Forest
Councils,
the
Forest
Department
relinquished
a
 portion
 of
 its
 authority
 in
 allowing
 the
 community
 to
 create
 its
 own
 forest
 management
 system.
 
 Although
 many
 barriers
 to
 effective
 implementation
 existed
 and
 continue
 to
 hamper
 JFM
 success,
 including
 lack
 of
 participation
 of
 various
 classes,
 castes
 and
 genders,
 community
 power
 hierarchies
 and
 government
 inefficiencies,
 JFM
 was
 a
 very
 obvious
 shift
 towards
 local
 involvement
 in
 conservation
 and
 development.
62 
 
 In
 the
 Brazilian
 context,
 Barboza
 indicates
 that
 environmental
NGOs
active
in
the
country
increased
from
an
estimated
40
in
1980
to
 900
 in
 1984.
 
 Encouraged
 by
 this
 momentum,
 non‐governmental
 organizations
 doubled
 in
 two
 years
 from
 2,500
 in
 1991
 to
 5,000
 in
 1993,
 addressing
 national
 issues
 from
 racism
 and
 poverty
 to
 environmental
 degradation
 and
 indigenous
 rights.
63
61 
(Chapin,
2004)
62 
(Agarwal,
2001)
63 
(Barboza,
2003)

37
Not
 only
 did
 this
 global
 phenomenon
 pertain
 to
 non‐governmental
 bodies,
 but
 the
 involvement
 of
 private
 interest
 in
 conservation
 and
 development
 gained
 momentum
 during
 this
 time
 period
 as
 well
 and
 continues
 into
 the
 present
 day.
Patagonia,
an
international
clothing
company,
has
purchased
large
tracts
of
land
in
Chilean
 Patagonia
 for
 conservation
 purposes,
 with
 significant
 impacts
 on
 the
 development
 of
 local
 livelihoods
 and
 future
 national
 infrastructure
 programs.
Ecotourism
 ventures,
 biological
 research
 stations,
 hunting
 reserves
 and
 privately
 owned
 corporate
 lands
 are
 a
 few
 examples
 of
 the
 arrangements
 being
 realized
 by
 private
 interests
 in
 the
 conservation
 industry.
64 
 
 Indeed,
 the
 number
 of
 privately
 owned
 parks
 has
 not
 been
 thoroughly
 assessed
 nor
 has
 its
 impact
 as
 a
 type
 of
 conservation
 model
 in
 the
 larger
 sustainable
 development
 discourse.
 
 Whereas
 private
 conservation
 reserves
 do
 have
 a
 significant
 history
 in
 various
 parts
 of
 the
 world,
 as
 discussed
 above,
 their
 purpose
 was
 largely
 to
 serve
 the
 interests
 of
 a
 single
royal
figure
or
privileged
community.

Private
conservation
initiatives
today,
 however,
 operate
 according
 to
 a
 more
 expanded
 mission
 of
 biodiversity
 preservation
for
the
public
good
and
the
wellbeing
of
future
generations.

However,
 what
 can
 be
 gleaned
 from
 the
 participation
 of
 this
 player
 is
 that
 the
 community
 involved
 in
 conservation
 and
 development
 has
 not
 only
 grown
 quickly,
 but
 has
 taken
on
a
very
diverse
character
with
authority
resting
in
the
hands
of
many.

The
 international
 REDD
 mechanism
 is
 taking
 shape
 directly
 in
 this
 globally
 eclectic
 environment,
 and
 many
 questions
 exist
 for
 how
 it
 will
 both
 influence
 and
 behave
 within
the
current
structure
of
global
governance.
64 
(Langholz,
2003)

38
2.1.2
Designing
a
Multi­Level
Mechanism
The
 REDD
 concept
 became
 a
 significant
 component
 to
 the
 international
 climate
 debate
 at
 the
 13 th 
 COP
 to
 the
 UNFCCC
 in
 Bali,
 Indonesia
 in
 2007,
 where
 member
states
agreed
that
if
a
REDD
mechanism
is
to
be
incorporated
into
a
Post‐
Kyoto
Protocol
2012
climate
action
plan,
its
specific
design
and
infrastructure
must
 be
 developed
 and
 agreed
 upon
 by
 the
 2009
 UNFCCC
 meeting
 in
 Copenhagen.
However,
 coming
 to
 a
 consensus
 on
 what
 such
 a
 mechanism
 should
 look
 like
 and
 how
it
should
operate
has
become
extremely
complicated.

As
the
Draft
Decision
on
REDD’s
 methodological
 guidance
 produced
 during
 the
 2009
 Copenhagen
Conference
 did
 not
 make
 specific
 decisions
 regarding
 many
 components
 of
 its
 institutional
structure,
various
arrangements
still
remain
under
current
discussion.
Naturally,
forming
a
general
framework
that
can
incorporate
the
enormous
range
of
 locally
and
nationally
specific
histories
and
capacities
related
to
forest
ownership,
 use
and
management
found
across
the
globe,
especially
in
regards
to
carbon
storage
 and
emissions
which
itself
is
still
a
largely
unexplored
field,
is
a
daunting
endeavor.
To
 make
 the
 process
 more
 easily
 digestible,
 there
 have
 been
 multiple
 attempts
 to
 organize
 the
 main
 points
 of
 how
 REDD
 can
 be
 conceptualized,
 structured
 and
 implemented.
Fundamentally,
 the
 initial
 REDD
 mechanism
 proposed
 in
 2005
 aimed
 to
 create
 financial
 incentives
 for
 developing
 countries
 to
 maintain
 forest
 cover
 as
 a
 standing
carbon
resource
and
a
potential
sink
for
carbon
sequestration
in
order
to
 slow
 greenhouse
 gas
 emissions
 and
 mitigate
 potentially
 negative
 consequences

39
 from
climatic
changes.

Through
the
efforts
of
an
active
intergovernmental
alliance
 of
 scientific
 communities
 that
 focuses
 on
 forest
 canopy
 research,
 education
 and
 conservation,
known
as
the
Global
Canopy
Programme
(GCP),
a
framework
has
been
 created
 to
 help
 understand
 the
 various
 points
 of
 view
 that
 are
 contributing
 to
 an
 institutional
architecture
that
would
make
such
a
mechanism
function.

This
model
 identifies
four
basic
components
under
debate:
scope,
reference
level,
distribution
 and
financing.
65
Scope
The
“scope”
of
REDD
refers
to
the
various
activities
of
forestland
use
that
will
 make
a
country
eligible
to
receive
financial
payments.

At
its
most
basic
level,
only
 nations
that
stopped
all
deforestation
below
a
determined
reference
level,
termed
RED,
would
qualify
for
payments.
66 


As
of
the
most
recently
updated
version
of
the
GCP
synthesis
released
during
the
June
2009
Bonn
Climate
Negotiations,
only
one
 country
of
the
19
that
submitted
suggestions
and
two
non‐governmental
coalitions
 out
of
14
advocated
for
this
strategy.
67
The
 next
 level
 of
 scope
 recognizes
 not
 only
 deforestation
 but
 also
 forest
 degradation
(REDD),
and
had
the
most
combined
support
from
governmental
and
 non‐state
 actors.
 
 The
 Nature
 Conservancy,
 one
 of
 the
 largest
 and
 most
 heavily
 funded
conservation
NGOs,
which
has
been
very
active
in
the
crafting
process
of
the
65 
( The
Little
REDD+
Book ,
2009)
66 
For
example,
in
the
case
of
Brazil,
they
advocate
for
a
reference
level
that
considers
historical
rates
 of
deforestation.

And
so
any
future
level
of
deforestation
that
falls
below
that
level
would
qualify
for
 payments.

Under
this
scope
structure,
a
nation
need
not
halt
all
deforestation.
67 
Brazil
and
the
Institute
for
Sustainable
Development
and
International
Relations
(IDDRI)/Center
D'Études
et
de
Recherches
sur
le
Developpment
International
(CERDI),
respectively.

40
REDD
mechanism,
defines
degradation
as
“the
gradual
reduction
of
biomass
within
 the
 forest
 without
 resulting
 in
 land
 use
 conversion.” 68 
 
 Degradation
 can
 take
 multiple
 forms,
 including
 disease
 and
 pest
 outbreak,
 fire,
 poor
 management
 in
 timber
 production
 forests,
 overgrazing,
 over
 extraction
 of
 fuelwood
 and
 Non‐
Timber
Forest
Products
(NTFPs)
and
illegal
logging.
69 

As
degradation
is
often
the
 precursor
to
greater
levels
of
deforestation
through
a
variety
of
drivers,
and
hence
 offers
a
more
comprehensive
paradigm
than
simply
focusing
on
RED,
the
inclusion
of
 this
 expanded
 concept
 in
 the
 future
 mechanism
 gained
 increasing
 popularity
 throughout
negotiations
leading
to
COP15.
The
third
level
of
scope
for
the
REDD
program,
which
was
supported
by
the
2009
 Copenhagen
 Draft
 Decision,
 builds
 on
 the
 degradation
 component
 by
 also
 adding
 conservation
 of
 standing
 forests,
 sustainable
 management
 of
 forests
 and
 activities
 that
 enhance
 forest
 carbon
 stocks
 to
 those
 management
 tools
 eligible
 to
 receive
 program
 funding.
 
 Whereas
 government
 support
 for
 this
 level
 of
 scope
 equaled
 that
 of
 those
 in
 favor
 of
 limiting
 it
 to
 deforestation
 and
 degradation,
 only
 one
 of
 the
 14
 NGOs
 advocated
 this
 as
 an
 acceptable
 option.
70 
 
 A
 more
 thorough
analysis
of
this
approved
design,
referred
to
as
REDD‐plus,
and
focusing
specifically
 on
the
implications
of
including
SFM
for
meeting
resource
management
and
national
 development
goals,
will
follow
shortly.
68 
( Don't
Forget
the
Second
"D" ,
June
2009)
69 
( UN
Collaborative
Programme
on
Reducing
Emissions
from
Deforestation
and
Forest
Degradation
in
Developing
Countries
(UN­REDD) ,
2008)
70 
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group

41
Reference
Level
The
 “reference
 level”
 addressed
 in
 the
 multiple
 proposals
 speaks
 to
 the
 manner
 in
 which
 emissions
 reductions
 will
 be
 measured,
 in
 terms
 of
 baseline
 emission
 levels
 for
 comparison
 and
 indicators
 of
 progress
 as
 well
 as
 the
 scale
 at
 which
these
measurements
will
be
assessed.

The
three
most
commonly
discussed
 reference
 levels
 include
 using
 a
 historical
 deforestation
 baseline,
 a
 historical
 adjusted
 baseline
 that
 seeks
 to
 incorporate
 factors
 that
 will
 steadily
 increase
 the
 pressures
 to
 deforest
 areas
 still
 intact
 over
 time,
 and
 a
 projected
 future
 deforestation
 baseline.
 
 Rates
 of
 deforestation
 that
 fall
 below
 these
 baselines
 will
 qualify
the
country
for
REDD
funding.

Significant
obstacles
can
be
found
in
all
three
 of
 these
 artificial
 baselines,
 including
 a
 serious
 lack
 of
 historical
 information
 from
 which
 to
 work,
 unpredictable
 economic
 and
 socio‐cultural
 influences
 and
 development
 models
 with
 inflated
 economic
 pressures.
 
 Additionally,
 the
 chosen
 reference
 level
 will
 have
 substantial
 impacts
 on
 which
 countries
 may
 participate,
 which
 will
 benefit
 most
 heavily
 and
 those
 which
 will
 be
 left
 out,
 making
 this
 an
 extremely
important
component
of
any
future
international
funding
regime.
The
 scale
 of
 a
 REDD
 mechanism
 identifies
 at
 what
 geopolitical
 level
 emissions
 reductions
 will
 be
 measured.
 
 The
 GCP
 has
 recognized
 three:
 sub‐ national,
national
and
regional.

A
sub‐national
scale
will
allow
forest
conservation
 efforts
within
a
country’s
borders
to
be
eligible
for
REDD
funding
at
a
project
level,
 such
as
the
“nested
approach”
advocated
by
the
Tropical
Agricultural
Research
and
Higher
 Education
 Center
 (CATIE)
 in
 Costa
 Rica.
 
 Greenhouse
 gas
 accounting
 takes
 place
at
the
national
level
but
credits
are
awarded
to
the
local
projects
engaging
in

42
 approved
 activities.
71 
 
 National
 and
 regional
 scales
 will
 attempt
 to
 coordinate
 emissions
reductions
activities
over
a
larger
area
and
may
be
more
appropriate
to
 implement
in
areas
prone
to
leakage.
Distribution
By
simply
focusing
on
countries
with
high
rates
of
tropical
deforestation
as
 potential
players
in
a
REDD
system,
concern
has
increased
in
regions
where
forest
 cover
 is
 vast
 yet
 deforestation
 pressures
 are
 low.
 
 Guyana,
 Suriname,
 Belize
 and
Gabon
are
among
the
nations
fitting
these
criteria
that
are
actively
searching
their
 place
 in
 this
 forming
 international
 system.
72 
 
 Discussions
 over
 distribution
 aim
 to
 address
this
structural
deficiency
by
offering
suggestions
for
financial
mechanisms
 that
 will
 channel
 money
 to
 countries
 with
 large
 standing
 forests
 and
 therefore
 provide
 financial
 incentives
 to
 avoid
 deforestation
 in
 the
 future.
 
 If
 ignored,
 these
 countries
may
have
the
economic
incentives
to
convert
the
forests
to
more
lucrative
 land
uses
or
even
begin
deforesting
to
qualify
for
REDD
funding.
A
 “redistribution
 mechanism”
 would,
 through
 a
 variety
 of
 different
 processes,
 withhold
 a
 certain
 amount
 of
 REDD
 payments
 earned
 by
 the
 countries
 with
 high
 deforestation
 rates
 and
 redistribute
 them
 to
 nations
 who
 avoided
 deforestation
 or
 degrading
 practices.
 
 While
 this
 would
 eliminate
 the
 need
 for
 an
 additional
external
funding
source
by
generating
payments
from
within
the
system,
 redistribution
has
the
potential
of
creating
disincentives
for
those
countries
which
 are
in
a
sense,
forced
to
share.

The
alternative
distribution
design
is
an
“additional
71 
( The
Little
REDD+
Book ,
2009)
72 
( The
Little
REDD+
Book ,
2009)

43
 fund”,
 where
 money
 would
 have
 to
 come
 from
 either
 donations
 or
 market‐based
 sources.
Financing
Of
extreme
importance
to
a
functional
REDD
mechanism,
and
indeed
to
the
 larger
 goal
 of
 global
 emissions
 reduction
 and
 climate
 stability,
 is
 identifying
 the
 appropriate
 source
 of
 money
 to
 fund
 such
 initiatives.
 
 One
 approach
 would
 be
 to
 create
 a
 voluntary
 fund
 from
 which
 countries
 would
 receive
 benefits
 according
 to
 their
level
of
REDD‐approved
emissions
reductions
efforts.

Overseas
Development
Assistance
(ODA)
would
be
one
form
of
financial
contribution.

A
second
approach
 would
 follow
 a
 variety
 of
 market‐linked
 designs
 where
 emissions
 reductions
 or
 allowances
 could
 be
 bought
 and
 sold
 to
 generate
 REDD‐funds.
 
 Flexibility
 exists
 concerning
whether
or
not
these
emissions
reductions
would
apply
towards
Annex‐
1
 country
 commitments.
 
 The
 third
 suggested
 approach
 is
 that
 of
 a
 direct
 market,
 where
REDD
credits
are
traded
directly
alongside
of
Certified
Emissions
Reductions
(CERs)
and
can
be
used
to
meet
national
targets.
Interestingly,
the
majority
of
proposals
reviewed
by
the
GCP
publication
have
 not
 specified
 a
 financing
 scheme
 to
 accompany
 its
 vision
 on
 an
 operable
 REDD
 mechanism.

This
can
be
attributed
to
the
fact
that
creating
a
funding
system
in
the
 face
of
such
extreme
variability
between
countries
looking
to
participate
in
REDD
is
 practically
 impossible.
 
 Additionally,
 carbon
 markets
 are
 for
 the
 most
 part
 undeveloped
and
must
be
accompanied
by
global
political
commitments
before
they
 will
be
operational
at
such
a
large
scale.

For
this
reason,
a
“phased
approach”
for

44
 financing
 has
 gained
 credibility.
 
 This
 would
 entail
 assessing
 each
 participating
 country’s
 “REDD‐readiness”
 in
 terms
 of
 institutional
 support
 and
 capacity
 for
 monitoring,
reporting
and
verifying
changes
in
emissions.

Financial
assistance
from
 a
 voluntary
 fund
 may
 be
 more
 appropriate
 to
 establish
 baseline
 preparedness
 to
 take
part
in
a
long‐term
REDD
agreement.

Market‐linked
funding
would
have
the
 potential
 to
 accelerate
 a
 REDD
 program
 and
 direct
 market
 mechanisms
 could
 provide
the
sustained
flow
of
financial
resources
necessary
for
longevity.
2.1.3
Introducing
the
Players
To
 better
 understand
 the
 complexity
 of
 the
 international
 governance
 structure
in
which
forest
loss
and
its
ramifications
are
being
addressed,
one
must
 acknowledge
 the
 increasingly
 influential
 roles
 that
 many
 actors
 are
 beginning
 to
 assume.

As
noted
throughout
the
above
discussion
concerning
the
evolution
of
the
 conservation
 and
 development
 discourses,
 the
 supranational
 bodies
 have
 maintained
 and
 solidified
 their
 powerful
 position
 in
 this
 debate
 as
 the
 overseeing
 bodies
on
the
development
of
REDD
architecture.

This
comes
as
no
surprise
with
 the
 increasingly
 transnational
 nature
 of
 environmental
 concerns,
 such
 as
 greenhouse
gas
emissions
and
climate
change.

Such
issues
cannot
be
solved
solely
 at
the
national
nor
regional
level,
and
require
global
coordination
and
cooperation.
Launched
 in
 September
 2008
 with
 support
 from
 the
 13 TH 
 COP
 Bali
 Action
Plan,
 the
 United
 Nations
 Collaborative
 Programme
 on
 the
 Reduction
 of
 Emissions
 from
Deforestation
and
Forest
Degradation
in
Developing
Countries
brings
together
 the
United
Nations
Development
Programme
(UNDP),
United
Nations
Environment

45
Programme
 (UNEP)
 and
 the
 Food
 and
 Agriculture
 Organization
 (FAO)
 in
 a
 large
 scale
concerted
effort
to
design
and
implement
a
global
initiative
that
quickly
and
 effectively
 mitigates
 against
 climate
 change
 through
 a
 mechanism
 targeting
 emissions
 from
 forest
 loss.
 
 By
 combing
 the
 established
 technical
 knowledge,
 institutional
 networks,
 political
 relations
 and
 social
 capital
 of
 these
 three
 large
 intergovernmental
 bodies,
 the
 UN‐REDD
 Programme’s
 initiators
 aimed
 to
 quickly
 establish
a
functional
structure
to
help
nations
prepare
for
participation
in
a
REDD
 mechanism
 following
 the
 end
 of
 the
 Kyoto
 Protocol
 in
 2012,
 also
 called
 “REDD‐ readiness,”
as
noted
earlier.

Joint
Programmes
are
created
between
the
UN‐REDD
Programme
 and
 the
 country
 of
 implementation,
 engaging
 the
 state
 in
 assessing
 at
 what
stage
it
stands
for
inclusion
in
a
REDD
process,
what
institutional
support
and
 capacity
building
still
need
to
develop
and
the
type
of
payment
structure
that
would
 be
 most
 appropriate.
73 
 
 “Quick
 start”
 early
 action
 programs
 began
 in
 June
 2008
 where
nine
pilot
countries
throughout
Latin
America,
tropical
Africa
and
Southeast
Asia
were
chosen
for
REDD
preparation,
focusing
on
the
needs
and
priorities
of
each
 nation
 as
 an
 experiential
 learning
 process
 on
 how
 REDD
 should
 be
 designed
 and
 implemented.
74 
 
 “Country
 Actions”
 concentrate
 on
 identifying
 country‐specific
 capabilities
and
limitations,
while
“International
Support
Functions”
allow
each
UN
agency
to
develop
and
refine
its
own
role
as
an
integral
coordinating
body.
75
73 
( UN
Collaborative
Programme
on
Reducing
Emissions
from
Deforestation
and
Forest
Degradation
in
Developing
Countries
(UN­REDD) ,
2008)
74 
Bolivia,
Panama,
Paraguay,
Democratic
Republic
of
Congo,
Tanzania,
Zambia,
Indonesia,
Papua
New
Guinea,
Vietnam
75 
( Quick
Start
Actions
and
Establishment
of
the
Multi­Donor
Trust
Fund ,
May
2008)

46
The
collaborative
approach
taken
within
the
United
Nations
extends
as
well
 to
the
partnerships
being
formed
amongst
other
multinational
bodies.

The
World
Bank’s
Forest
Carbon
Partnership
Facility
(FCPF)
was
created
specifically
to
assist
 countries
 in
 their
 efforts
 to
 participate
 in
 REDD
 mitigation
 efforts
 through
 two
 mechanisms:
 Readiness
 and
 Carbon
 Finance.
 
 As
 of
 October
 2009,
 the
 Readiness
Mechanism
 has
 accepted
 US$
 107
 million
 of
 its
 target
 US$
 185
 million
 from
 11
 donor
 countries
 and
 US
 $51
 million
 has
 already
 been
 pledged
 for
 the
 Carbon
Finance
 Mechanism,
 with
 a
 goal
 of
 operating
 from
 US$
 200
 million.
 
 37
 countries
 had
 their
 “Readiness
 Plan”
 approved
 for
 entry
 into
 the
 Readiness
 Mechanism
 by
March
2009,
indicating
the
immense
size
and
influence
this
intergovernmental
body
 has
 achieved.
76 
 
 In
 addition
 to
 the
 FCPF,
 various
 national
 initiatives
 have
 been
 created
 in
 order
 to
 fund
 and
 support
 REDD‐readiness
 activities
 across
 the
 globe.
The
Norwegian
Climate
and
Forest
Initiative
has
pledged
just
over
US$
50
million,
Australia’s
International
Forest
Carbon
Initiative
has
allocated
AUD$
200
million
to
 activities
 related
 to
 REDD
 development
 and
 monitoring
 and
 both
 the
 German
International
 Climate
 Initiative
 and
 Japanese
 Cool
 Earth
 Partnership
 have
 earmarked
 large
 amounts
 of
 funding
 for
 climate
 change
 mitigation
 activities,
 including
forest
conservation.
77
To
 add
 even
 more
 complexity
 to
 the
 picture,
 an
 exploding
 community
 of
 private
companies,
research
organizations,
think
tanks
and
NGOs
have
staked
their
 claim
 in
 the
 shaping
 of
 REDD
 processes
 and
 funding
 mechanisms.
 
 From
 North
 to
76 
(Bank,
2009)
77 
("Climate
Funds
Update,")

47
South,
large‐scale
to
locally‐based,
more
and
more
institutions
are
creating
ways
to
 become
 involved.
 
 However,
 in
 the
 midst
 of
 all
 of
 this
 multi‐sector
 growth
 and
 exchange,
one
question
begs
to
be
asked;
what
is
the
role
and
authority
of
the
state?
SECTION
 2.2:
 POSITIONING
 REDD
 IN
 INTERNATIONAL
 GOVERNANCE
 AND
 THE
CURRENT
POLITICAL
ECONOMY
2.2.1
 Creating
 A
 New
 Model
 of
 Conservation
 and
 Governance,
 or
 Redefining
What
Once
Was?
The
last
20
years
of
the
conservation
and
development
discourses
have
seen
 the
 steady
 replacement
 of
 central
 state
 control
 with
 supranational
 development
 agencies,
 intergovernmental
 bodies,
 multinational
 enterprises,
 local
 private
 businesses
 and
 community‐driven
 NGOs.
 
 Authority
 has
 been
 effectively
 split
 and
 reallocated
both
above
and
below
the
nation‐state.

This
is
not
to
say
that
the
state
 has
become
impotent
in
both
national
and
international
affairs,
nor
that
this
applies
 unequivocally
to
all
nations
on
this
planet.

Simply,
conservation
and
development
 initiatives
 have
 shifted
 away
 from
 involvement
 and
 oversight
 by
 state
 authorities
 and
 toward
 supranational
 regimes
 and
 substate
 citizens’
 groups.
 
 This
 reality
 reflects
 what
 has
 become
 known
 as
 “’World
 Society
 Theory’,
 which
 posits
 that
 transnational
intergovernmental,
non‐governmental
and
civil
society
organizations
 have
 fostered
 norms
 of
 state
 responsibility
 for
 environmental
 protection,
 through
 the
 creation
 of
 international
 conventions
 and
 by
 grooming
 state
 actors
 in
 developing
 countries
 to
 become
 champions
 of
 conservation.” 78 
 
 National
 governance,
in
effect,
is
increasingly
coming
from
sources
external
to
the
state.
78 
(Igoe
&
Brockington,
2007,
p.
p.
433)

48
With
 the
 advent
 of
 the
 REDD
 concept,
 this
 governance
 structure
 is
 coming
 into
 question.
 
 Although
 the
 many
 actors
 involved
 represent
 what
 Igoe
 and
Brockington
 term
 a
 form
 of
 “hybrid”
 environmental
 governance, 79 
 the
 REDD
 mechanism
being
crafted
by
the
UN
Collaborative
Programme
has
the
potential
to
 return
significant
authority
back
to
the
state.

As
described
above,
all
of
the
Quick
Start
 early
 action
 plans
 begin
 with
 the
 state
 body
 as
 the
 main
 driver
 for
 REDD‐ readiness.
 
 An
 overwhelming
 majority
 of
 the
 state
 and
 non‐governmental
 bodies
 that
submitted
design
proposals
to
the
Global
Canopy
Project
advocate
for
REDD
to
 operate
at
the
national
scale.

Readiness
plans
for
the
FCPF
and
dialogue
with
other
 bilateral
 funding
 sources
 assess
 participation
 potential
 through
 the
 central
 state
 infrastructure.


National
REDD
Secretariats
will
be
established
in
each
country
and
 work
 in
 conjunction
 with
 governmental
 agencies.
 
 International
 action
 related
 to
 global
 environmental
 challenges
 may
 indeed
 require
 stronger,
 more
 active
 state
 players.
On
 the
 other
 hand,
 one
 may
 argue
 that
 a
 return
 of
 centralized
 authority
 under
a
new
REDD
regime
reflects
no
significant
shift
from
past
ideologies
in
global
 environmental
 governance
 and
 development
 practice.
 
 While
 indeed
 national
 governments
 are
 required
 for
 REDD
 implementation,
 they
 are
 still
 driven
 and
 controlled
by
outside
forces.

Approval
of
financial
resources
as
a
function
of
specific
 land
use
and
development
agendas
must
be
made
by
non‐state
actors,
which
have
 the
potential
to
significantly
restrict
the
legitimate
control
of
a
government
over
its
79 
(Igoe
&
Brockington,
2007)

49
REDD
 participation.
 
 Indigenous
 communities
 around
 the
 world
 have
 taken
 this
 potential
 cooptation
 extremely
 seriously,
 viewing
 it
 as
 a
 likely
 extension
 of
 World
Bank
 policies
 and
 private
 interests
 notorious
 for
 threatening
 and
 dismantling
 traditional
 land
 rights,
 ownership
 and
 access
 to
 natural
 resources.
 
 The
 confederation
 of
 indigenous
 peoples
 from
 the
 Ecuadorian
 Amazon
 (CONFENIAE)
 issued
a
statement
on
August
3,
2009
that
directly
spoke
to
this
concern.
That
all
these
policies
and
extractive
activities
and
negotiations
on
the
 forests
 and
 biodiversity
 in
 our
 Ancestral
 Territories
 will
 have
 unfathomable
 consequences,
 including
 the
 extinction
 of
 our
 identity
 as
Ancestral
Nations,
[our]
loss
of
the
control
and
management
of
our
 territories,
 which
 would
 subsequently
 be
 managed
 by
 the
 State,
 foreign
 countries,
 multinationals,
 REDD
 negotiators
 or
 Carbon
Traders …
[italics
added] 80
The
 extent
 to
 which
 national
 governments
 retain
 their
 position
 of
 authority
 and
 autonomy
in
the
creation
and
implementation
of
REDD
national
action
plans
within
 such
 a
 globalized
 “World
 Society”
 remains
 to
 be
 seen
 as
 the
 official
 REDD
 mechanism
is
crafted
within
the
parameters
of
the
Copenhagen
Accord
and
future
UNFCCC
guidelines.
2.2.2
A
Twist
on
Neoliberalism?
Positioning
 the
 developing
 REDD
 structure
 within
 the
 current
 neoliberal
 international
 political
 economy
 is
 not
 a
 straightforward
 task.
 
 The
 basic
 tenet
 of
 neoliberal
thought,
which
is
facilitating
the
spread
of
and
access
to
free
markets,
can
 be
found
in
the
theoretical
formulation
of
a
global
REDD
mechanism.

Carbon,
and
 hence
 the
 forest
 in
 which
 it
 is
 held,
 has
 been
 commoditized
 in
 such
 a
 way
 as
 to
 accommodate
 the
 creation
 of
 markets
 open
 to
 its
 voluntary
 trade
 according
 to
80 
("CONFENIAE",
August
3,
2009,
p.
(italics
added))

50
 supply
 and
 demand.
 
 Valuation
 techniques
 for
 forest
 carbon
 sequestration
 and
 standing
carbon
stocks
will
presumably
improve,
allowing
for
more
accurate
market
 prices
that
all
consumers
value
similarly.
Indeed,
REDD
by
nature
is
a
capitalistic
approach
to
forest
conservation
and
 climate
change
mitigation.

Emissions
reductions
will
be
available
for
purchase
per
 ton
 of
 carbon
 saved
 through
 avoided
 deforestation
 and
 degradation,
 and
 as
 the
 demand
for
emissions
allowances
increases
according
to
national
and
international
 target
 limits,
 so
 will
 the
 price
 paid
 within
 the
 international
 carbon
 markets.
However,
REDD
does
not
seek
to
decentralize
nor
privatize,
two
other
fundamental
 characteristics
of
neoliberal
doctrine.

On
the
contrary,
the
possibility
strongly
exists
 for
a
redefinition
of
the
state’s
role
as
a
very
central
governing
component,
as
noted
 above.

Consolidation
of
decision
making
within
a
state‐controlled
body
would
allow
 for
 more
 effective
 information
 sharing,
 project
 implementation
 and
 reporting
 and
 verifying
 of
 emissions
 reductions
 necessary
 for
 funding
 qualification.
 
 If
 a
 REDD
 national
strategy
develops
a
system
that
operates
on
a
sub‐national
scale,
a
central
 governing
 body
 must
 be
 able
 to
 coordinate
 the
 various
 projects
 and
 report
 collective
reductions
to
the
funding
agencies.

There
must
also
be
national
oversight
 in
order
to
monitor
and
prevent
leakage
of
deforestation
pressures
either
from
one
 location
to
another
within
a
state’s
borders
or
transnationally.
Privatization
 of
 major
 REDD
 components
 does
 not
 fit
 with
 its
 developing
 infrastructure
 either.
 
 Multilateral
 partnerships
 and
 intergovernmental
 initiatives
 will
 undoubtedly
 include
 private
 interests,
 yet
 do
 not
 constitute
 the
 level
 of

51
 privatization
 traditionally
 called
 for
 by
 neoliberals.
 
 As
 Igoe
 and
 Brockington
 suggest,
perhaps
neoliberalisation
does
not
promote
deregulation
 per
se 
so
much
as
 reregulation,
 defined
 as
 “the
 use
 of
 states
 to
 transform
 previously
 untradeable
 things
 into
 tradable
 commodities.” 81 
 
 In
 the
 case
 of
 REDD,
 this
 process
 of
 reregulation
is
transferring
increasing
levels
of
governance
authority
of
these
new
 commodities
 to
 the
 plethora
 of
 partnerships
 described
 above
 while
 ensuring
 the
 position
 of
 the
 state
 as
 a
 central
 partner.
 
 As
 such,
 while
 REDD
 jostles
 to
 find
 its
 exact
place
within
a
structure
both
heavily
influenced
by
central
state
control
and
 private
global
entities,
its
ultimate
expression
of
a
neoliberal
conservation
strategy
 is
undeniable.

Given
this
ideological
framework,
the
following
chapter
will
explore
 the
 danger
 this
 poses
 to
 REDD’s
 success
 and
 the
 critical
 role
 of
 the
 Sustainable
Forest
 Management
 paradigm
 in
 redefining
 REDD’s
 theoretical
 and
 operational
 foundation.
81 
(Igoe
&
Brockington,
2007,
p.
p.
437)

52
CHAPTER
3:

BLOWING
DOWN
THE
HOUSE
OF
CARDS‐
REDD’S
FUTURE
FAILURE
AND
THE
CALL
FOR
A
POST‐DEVELOMENT
PERSPECTIVE
Now
 that
 the
 theoretical
 framework
 of
 REDD
 has
 been
 situated
 within
 a
 merged
conservation
and
development
paradigm
that
increasingly
aligns
itself
with
 new
 expressions
 of
 neoliberal
 free
 market
 doctrine,
 it
 is
 of
 utmost
 importance
 to
 step
 back
 and
 ask
 two
 critically
 important
 questions:
 “Upon
 which
 fundamental
 principles
 has
 the
 REDD
 mechanism
 been
 constructed?
 
 Furthermore,
 are
 they
 sustainable?”

The
first
question
may
seem
basic
and
straightforward,
meaning
that
REDD
 has
 come
 into
 existence
 as
 a
 theoretically
 fast‐acting,
 effective
 and
 efficient
 way
 of
 trading
 money
 for
 the
 protection
 of
 the
 earth’s
 forests,
 emphasizing
 the
 immense
global
carbon
reservoir
while
also
including
the
multiple
socio‐ecological
“co‐benefits”
at
stake.

The
Kyoto
Protocol
introduced
the
concept
of
market‐based
 carbon
 trading
 for
 climate
 change
 mitigation,
 and
 REDD,
 in
 the
 eyes
 of
 its
 supporters,
 represents
 a
 robust
 extension
 of
 that
 approach
 applied
 to
 a
 sector
 of
 significant
 carbon
 emissions
 largely
 ignored
 by
 the
 initial
 flexibility
 mechanisms.
REDD,
 therefore,
 complements
 the
 original
 Kyoto
 Protocol’s
 overall
 agenda
 of
 reducing
global
carbon
emissions
through
the
most
cost‐effective
avenues
and
fits
 well
within
the
original
institutional
mission
and
structure.
The
second
question,
however,
has
yet
to
be
adequately
addressed
by
those
 in
 charge
 of
 REDD’s
 design
 and
 functionality,
 even
 though
 the
 Objective
 of
 the
UNFCCC
states
that
the
purpose
of
any
“legal
instrument
that
the
Conference
of
the
Parties
may
adopt
is
to
achieve
…
stabilization
of
greenhouse
gas
concentrations
in
 the
 atmosphere
 that
 would
 enable
 …
 economic
 development
 to
 proceed
 in
 a

53
 sustainable
 manner.” 82 
 
 It
 is
 in
 the
 context
 of
 this
 question
 that
 I
 apply
 post‐ development
theory
as
a
tool
for
comprehensively
deconstructing
REDD
down
to
its
 basic
 flawed
 components
 and
 seek
 to
 extract
 core
 elements
 that
 may
 be
 used
 to
build
not
a
new
discourse
of
development,
but
rather
its
multiple
alternatives.
I
 employ
 a
 post‐development
 critique
 within
 this
 analysis
 for
 two
 reasons.
Firstly,
 it
 succinctly
 identifies
 the
 discursive
 elements
 that
 have
 generated
 development’s
global
discontents.

And
secondly,
it
creates
the
theoretical
platform
 from
 which
 I
 am
 able
 to
 demonstrate
 that
 these
 elements
 form
 the
 structure
 of
 a
 mechanism
(i.e.
REDD)
charged
with
the
responsibility
of
saving
the
earth’s
forests
 and
 mitigating
 the
 greatest
 threat
 which
 human
 civilization
 currently
 faces.
 
 The
 individuals
 engaged
 in
 articulating
 post‐development
 thought
 and
 practice
 are
 crafting
a
new
paradigm
with
true
potential
for
sustaining
the
earth
and
its
people.
Hence,
 this
 theoretical
 framework
 must
 play
 a
 central
 role
 in
 both
 preventing
 the
 repetition
 of
 failed
 global
 initiatives
 and
 in
 shaping
 a
 altogether
 new
 conceptualization
of
people,
ecosystems
and
development.
3.1­
Introducing
the
Post­Development
Concept
The
end
of
the
twentieth
century
witnessed
the
growth
of
an
active
and
vocal
 group
from
a
diversity
of
disciplines
that
forcefully
denounced
both
the
methods
of
 the
 international
 development
 project
 and
 the
 institutions
 that
 oversaw
 its
 implementation.

The
insatiable
drive
for
material
consumption,
the
dominance
of
 capitalist
 economic
 forces,
 the
 loss
 of
 both
 socio‐cultural
 and
 biological
 diversity
82 
(UNFCCC,
1992,
p.
4)

54
 and
 the
 nation‐state’s
 role
 in
 perpetuating
 the
 singular
 march
 towards
 modernity
 that
 guides
 each
 of
 these
 processes
 stand
 as
 evidence
 that
 as
 a
 global
 mission,
 development
has
favored
the
few
and
failed
the
many.

From
this
perspective,
the
 next
logical
step
has
been
to
reevaluate
the
terms
of
development,
to
identify
how
it
 can
be
improved
and
to
create
a
new
development
approach.

As
Arturo
Escobar,
a
 founding
father
of
the
post‐development
genre
writes,
“the
dialectic
here
tends
to
 push
 for
 another
 round
 of
 solutions,
 even
 if
 conceived
 through
 more
 radical
 categories‐
 cultural,
 ecological,
 politicoeconomic,
 and
 so
 on.” 83 
 
 Examples
 of
 this
 shift
 can
 be
 clearly
 seen
 with
 the
 international
 fixation
 on
 the
 Millennium
Development
 Goals
 (MDG),
 the
 concept
 of
 Sustainable
 Development,
 the
 Human
Development
 Indicators
 and
 the
 popularity
 of
 referring
 to
 development
 strategies
 as
“pro‐poor,”
attempting
to
indicate
that
a
major
restructuring
of
the
development
 machine
 has
 taken
 place
 and
 progress
 will
 be
 made.
84 
 
 However,
 the
 lack
 of
 significant
 progress
 in
 these
 domains
 and
 the
 failure
 to
 achieve
 the
 MDGs
 in
 a
 timeframe
deemed
necessary
by
their
designers
only
reaffirms
Escobar’s
statement
 that
“this
[dialectic]
will
not
do.” 85
In
this
regard,
the
end
of
the
twentieth
century
also
saw
the
formation
of
an
 eclectic
community
of
scholars,
development
practitioners
and
global
citizens
that
 directly
 questioned
 the
 concept
 of
 development
 itself.
 
 The
 correct
 form
 of
 development
 was
 not
 debated,
 but
 rather
 the
 forces
 which
 created
 the
 metric
 of
83 
(Escobar,
1995,
p.
217)
84 
(Latouche,
1997)
85 
(Escobar,
1995,
p.
217)

55
“development”
 and
 maintained
 its
 dominance
 as
 a
 global
 organizing
 principle.
86
These
 individuals
 did
 not
 offer
 suggestions
 on
 how
 to
 improve
 the
 development
 industry,
but
sought
instead
to
identify
its
structural
components
that
enabled
the
 creation
 of
 a
 post‐World
 War
 II
 reality
 that
 literally
 divided
 the
 world
 into
 two
 categories:
 developed
 and
 underdeveloped.
 
 Through
 this
 deconstruction,
 post‐ development
 thinkers
 do
 not
 offer
 a
 revised
 vision
 of
 development.
 
 Rather,
 they
 create
a
theoretical
space
which
acknowledges
the
need
for
multiple
discourses
and
 embraces
“an
awareness
that
reality
can
be
redefined
in
terms
other
than
those
of
 development
and
that,
consequently,
people
and
social
groups
can
act
otherwise
on
 the
basis
of
those
different
definitions.” 87
3.2
Post­Development­
What
does
it
mean,
exactly?
In
 order
 to
 understand
 the
 position
 post‐development
 theory
 holds
 in
 the
 current
international
development
debate
and
its
applicability
to
the
nascent
REDD
 climate
 change
 mitigation
 mechanism,
 a
 brief
 overview
 of
 its
 origins
 and
 fundamental
tenets
must
be
provided.

Although
the
post‐development
community
 appears
to
be
small
in
comparison
to
that
of
traditional
development
thinkers
and
 practitioners,
 scholar
 Aram
 Ziai
 refers
 to
 it
 as
 a
 manifestation
 of
 “the
 most
 significant
shift
in
development
theory
in
the
last
decade
of
the
twentieth
century.” 88
Culminating
in
a
few
principal
volumes, 89 
those
engaged
in
articulating
the
multiple
86 
(Escobar,
2005;
Nakano,
2005;
Parfitt,
2002;
Sachs,
1992;
Ziai,
2007)
87 
(Escobar,
2005,
p.
21)
88 
(Ziai,
2007,
p.
3)
89 
 The
Development
Dictionary 
edited
and
contributed
to
by
Wolfgang
Sachs
in
1992,
 Encountering
Development 
written
by
Arturo
Escobar
in
1995
and
 The
Post­Development
Reader 
edited
and
 contributed
to
by
Majid
Rahnema
and
Victoria
Bawtree
in
1997
are
the
three
main
volumes
of
 published
post‐development
theory
and
practice.

56
 voices
 of
 post‐development
 thinking
 brought
 together
 an
 enormous
 diversity
 of
 essays
and
experiences
from
both
the
global
South
and
North,
not
only
with
sharp
 critiques
 of
 the
 development
 apparatus
 but
 also
 with
 examples
 of
 what
 became
known
as
“alternatives”
to
development.
90
As
 mentioned
 above,
 their
 main
 objective
 was
 not
 to
 produce
 a
 new
 and
 improved
version
of
development
practice,
but
to
illuminate
the
discourse
of
power
 and
knowledge
that
created
the
development
complex
in
the
first
place
and
to
open
 space
 for
 the
 conceptualization
 of
 a
 “post‐development”
 era.
 
 Originating
 from
 a
 post‐structuralist
perspective
heavily
influenced
by
the
work
of
French
philosopher
Michel
Foucault,
these
scholars,
practitioners
and
development
subjects
argue
that
 the
 possession
 of
 power,
 whether
 political,
 economic,
 socio‐cultural
 or
 a
 combination
 thereof,
 allows
 certain
 forms
 of
 knowledge
 to
 generate
 truth
 and
 reality.
 
 As
 one
 account
 of
 reality
 assumes
 hegemonic
 status,
 all
 other
 conceptualizations
 of
 truth
 and
 knowledge‐
 all
 other
 worldviews
 outside
 of
 that
 which
 has
 become
 dominant‐
 become
 irrelevant.
 
 The
 post‐structuralist
 school
 of
 thought
forcefully
points
to
the
inherent
and
undeniable
nature
of
exclusion
as
the
 development
discourse’s
most
insidious
flaw,
criticizing
it
for
marginalizing
the
very
 people,
societies
and
cultures
which
it
purports
to
serve.

While
operating
under
the
 guise
of
progress
and
prosperity,
the
development
discourse
produced
an
entirely
 new
 class
 of
 people,
 the
 “subaltern,” 91 
 generically
 characterized
 by
 manufactured
90 
(Escobar,
1995,
p.
222)
91 
(Agrawal,
2005,
p.
165)

57
 forms
of
“non‐existence,”
defined
by
what
they
lack
in
comparison
to
the
hegemonic
 standards
of
being
developed.
92
Additionally,
 the
 production
 of
 this
 discourse
 was
 accompanied
 by
 the
 growth
 of
 an
 immense
 and
 permanent
 institutional
 structure
 responsible
 for
 the
 implementation
 and
 propagation
 of
 the
 knowledge
 structure
 to
 which
 it
 owes
 its
 existence.

As
certain
forms
of
knowledge
became
viewed
as
inadequate
and
wrong,
 the
 need
 for
 experts
 and
 professionals
 capable
 of
 replacing
 them
 with
 modern
 expressions
 of
 efficient
 and
 productive
 knowledge
 increased
 dramatically.
 
 The
 combination
 of
 creating
 both
 development
 institutions
 and
 its
 professionals
 produced
 answers
 to
 the
 problems
 they
 alone
 had
 manufactured,
 and
 which
 ensured
their
permanence.

In
light
of
this
analysis,
the
very
notion
of
development,
 with
 its
 obvious
 correlate
 of
 being
 “underdeveloped”,
 can
 no
 longer
 be
 seen
 as
 a
 natural
component
in
the
evolution
of
human
civilization.

Instead,
it
is
an
artifact
of
 an
imposed
value
system
of
fact
and
truth
produced
by
a
particular
community
that
 identifies
 itself
 according
 to
 these
 organizing
 principles.
 
 As
 such,
 according
 to
 critics,
it
can
and
must
be
dismantled
and
removed
from
its
position
of
dominance
 in
order
to
make
room
for
the
expression
of
alternative
narratives
which
had
been
 heretofore
excluded.
From
 this
 epistemological
 perspective,
 the
 post‐structuralist
 thinkers
 identified
 the
 specific
 elements
 which
 form
 the
 bedrock
 of
 the
 development
 discourse
 and
 thus
 began
 the
 post‐development
 movement
 to
 challenge
 its
92 
(Santos,
2004
as
cited
in
Gibson‐Graham,
J.K.
2005.)

58
 hegemony
 and
 embrace
 the
 alternative:
 plurality.
 
 Acknowledging
 that
 post‐ development
 literature
 indeed
 has
 its
 staunch
 critics,
 as
 does
 the
 concept
 of
Sustainable
 Forest
 Management
 that
 was
 discussed
 earlier
 and
 will
 be
 of
 further
 interest
 towards
 the
 conclusion
 of
 this
 paper,
 the
 post‐development
 perspective
 rests
 on
 two
 organizing
 principles
 that
 have
 remained
 largely
 unchallenged:
 “the
 traditional
 concept
 of
 development
 is
 Eurocentric…
 and
 has
 authoritarian
 and
 technocratic
 implications.” 93 
 
 Although
 the
 roots
 of
 development
 extend
 beyond
 colonial
times,
United
States
President
Harry
S.
Truman’s
1949
inauguration
speech
 gave
 tangible
 legitimacy
 to
 the
 Western
 conceptualization
 of
 the
 world
 as
 either
 developed
 or
 underdeveloped.
94 
 
 It
 therefore
 established
 the
 dominant
 form
 of
 knowledge‐
 the
 one
 true
 worldview‐
 that
 has
 dictated
 in
 which
 way
 all
 of
 human
 society
develops
up
until
the
present
day.
Post‐development
 practitioners
 proceed
 to
 point
 out
 that,
 in
 order
 to
 facilitate
this
singular
procession,
three
main
tools
have
been
employed.

“Market,
 state
 and
 science
 have
 been
 the
 great
 universalizing
 powers…[to]
 reinforce
 the
Occidental
 worldview.” 95 
 
 It
 is
 these
 three
 concepts
 to
 which
 I
 now
 turn
 in
 this
 analysis,
 demonstrating
 that
 REDD,
 as
 presently
 conceived
 and
 constructed,
 undeniably
 positions
 the
 market,
 state
 and
 science
 as
 its
 three
 principle
 pillars
 of
 support.

The
consequences
of
this
structural
arrangement
are
twofold.

Firstly,
this
 will
cause
the
multi‐billion
dollar
climate
change
mitigation
strategy
to
fall
far
short
 of
its
intended
goals,
which
include
climate
stabilization,
biodiversity
preservation,
93 
(Ziai,
2007,
p.
8)
94 
(Esteva,
1992)
95 
(Sachs,
1992,
pp.
4‐5)

59
 ecological
 services
 protection
 and
 sustainable
 development
 for
 human
 communities,
as
it
has
similarly
lead
to
development’s
widespread
failure.

Secondly,
 it
 will
 significantly
 jeopardize
 the
 opportunity
 for
 Sustainable
 Forest
 Management
 to
explore
its
potential
as
a
viable
solution
to
the
aforementioned
challenges
and
a
 truly
sustainable
expression
of
post‐development
principles
in
practice.
3.3
Market,
State
and
Science:
The
defunct
pillars
of
a
global
REDD
initiative
MARKET
Growth
through
free‐market
enterprise
has
been
the
guiding
mantra
for
the
 international
 development
 paradigm
 from
 its
 inception.
 
 Stated
 as
 poignantly
 and
 succinctly
as
possible,
“the
idea
of
growth
is
essential
to
our
modern
way
of
viewing
 human
 life.” 96 
 
 The
 silver
 bullet
 answer
 to
 poverty
 and
 all
 of
 its
 associated
 woes,
 whether
having
their
origins
in
supposed
dysfunctional
political
systems,
inefficient
 production
methods
or
“backward”
socio‐cultural
practices
and
beliefs,
has
always
 been
economic
growth.

However,
only
an
economy
based
upon
market
capitalism
 as
crafted
and
controlled
by
Western
powers
was
considered
capable
of
eradicating
 global
 poverty.
 
 And
 hence,
 all
 other
 conceptualizations
 of
 Economy
 fell
 by
 the
 wayside.
 
 The
 economics
 of
 market
 capitalism,
 which
 emphasize
 increasing
 production
 and
 consumption
 of
 material
 goods
 through
 the
 private
 control
 of
 resources,
control
the
measures
of
a
society’s
level
of
“development”.

Privatization,
 efficiency
and
productivity
are
the
signature
elements
of
an
economic
model
forged
 by
the
Eurocentric
development
discourse
against
which
all
societies
are
judged
and
 subsequently,
adjusted.
96 
(Berthoud,
1992,
p.
72)

60
The
dominance
of
the
Western
market
doctrine
and
its
complete
hegemony
 within
 the
 development
 agenda
 is
 exactly
 what
 post‐development
 theorists
 and
 practitioners
 reject.
 
 
 As
 expressed
 by
 French
 scholar
 Serge
 Latouche,
 “the
 economization
of
the
world
enables
Western
economic
criteria
to
function.” 97 

In
its
 quest
 to
 create
 boundless
 wealth
 and
 the
 perfectly
 competitive,
 homogenous
 individual,
free‐market
enterprise
has
concentrated
prosperity
for
only
those
select
 few
who
have
the
ability
to
engage
in
market
exchanges
to
which
the
majority
does
 not
have
access.

Indeed,
the
inadequacies
of
this
manufactured
conviction
that
free
 market
capitalism
and
its
ability
to
generate
growth
is
the
universal
answer
to
the
 concept
 of
 underdevelopment,
 which
 it
 helped
 create,
 have
 been
 widely
 acknowledged.
 
 The
 New
 Economics
 Foundation
 (nef)
 released
 a
 publication
 in
November
 2009
 that
 places
 this
 failure
 in
 the
 context
 of
 poverty
 alleviation
 and
 environmental
damage:
Recent
research
shows
that,
‘global
economic
growth
is
an
extremely
 inefficient
 way
 of
 achieving
 poverty
 reduction.’
 
 In
 the
 1990s…
 to
 achieve
 a
 single
 dollar
 of
 poverty
 reduction
 for
 those
 living
 on
 less
 than
$1
per
day;
it
took
an
extra
$166
of
extra
global
production
and
 consumption,
 generating
 enormous
 environmental
 impacts
 which
 counter‐productively
hurt
the
poorest
most.
98
Similarly,
economist
Herman
E.
Daly
directly
states
that
“it
is
impossible
for
 the
 world
 economy
 to
 grow
 its
 way
 out
 of
 poverty
 and
 environmental
 degradation.” 99 

However,
this
artificially
constructed
universal
truth
of
the
 free
market’s
ability
to
lift
everyone
out
of
poverty
and
into
a
singular
state
 of
 wellbeing,
 created
 and
 perpetuated
 by
 the
 development
 apparatus,
 has
97 
(Latouche,
1997,
p.
136)
98 
(Development
and
Climate
Change,
2009,
p.
12)
99 
(Daly,
1998,
p.
285)

61
 proven
 extremely
 resistant
 to
 criticism
 and
 change.
 
 “The
 market
 still
 appears
 the
 only
 possible
 path
 to
 development
 despite
 innumerable
 difficulties
and
setbacks.” 100
Upon
 this
 fundamental
 organizing
 principle
 is
 the
 REDD
 mechanism
 currently
being
constructed.

REDD
is
undeniably
a
global
initiative
based
squarely
 upon
 the
 problematic
 economic
 ideologies
 discussed
 above,
 directed
 towards
 ecological
 systems.
 
 In
 this
 instance,
 carbon
 has
 assumed
 the
 role
 of
 the
 unifying
 resource.
 
 And
 according
 to
 its
 supporters,
 if
 addressed
 properly
 through
 various
 international
 structures,
 REDD
 and
 its
 carbon
 focus
 may
 be
 able
 to
 ensure
 the
 protection
of
the
world’s
forests
and
its
biodiversity
while
creating
the
institutional
 capacity
to
alleviate
poverty
and
shape
a
sustainable
future.

However,
through
our
 post‐development
 analysis,
 it
 has
 become
 clear
 that
 this
 is
 an
 impossibility.
 
 The
 development
 paradigm’s
 insistence
 on
 economic
 commoditization
 is
 now
 attempting
to
monetize
entire
forest
ecosystems
of
extreme
complexity
into
a
single
 tradable
unit.

This
process
of
“abstraction”
not
only
has
infinite
logistical
challenges
 but
 also
 seeks
 to
 expand
 significantly
 the
 “development
 as
 integration
 into
 global
 capital
 markets”
 principle
 that
 underpins
 current
 development
 hegemony.
101
Generating
 another
 form
 of
 exclusion
 to
 which
 many
 post‐development
 scholars
 speak,
 this
 approach
 destroys
 all
 meaning,
 value
 and
 purpose
 of
 an
 ecological
 system
and
its
dependent
human
communities
that
cannot
be
represented
through
 price
 and
 utility.
 
 In
 this
 sense,
 REDD
 will
 only
 reinforce
 the
 pattern
 of
 wealth
100 
(Berthoud,
1992,
p.
70)
101 
(Bumpus
&
Liverman,
2008,
p.
137)

62
 accumulation
 for
 a
 small
 minority
 of
 those
 who
 can
 participate
 in
 market
 transactions
 at
 the
 expense
 of
 the
 world’s
 poor
 majority,
 the
 stability
 of
 global
 climatic
processes
and
the
forest
ecosystems
it
aims
to
protect.
In
current
practice
and
policy
negotiations,
the
activities
surrounding
REDD‐ readiness
and
forest
carbon
market‐based
transactions
could
not
demonstrate
this
 point
 more
 clearly.
 
 The
 concepts
 of
 “permanence”
 and
 “leakage”
 have
 dominated
 discussions
 surrounding
 REDD’s
 (in)ability,
 under
 its
 current
 form,
 to
 mitigate
 against
 climate
 change
 and
 protect
 the
 world’s
 forests.
 
 Permanence
 refers
 to
 the
 uncertainty
that
forest
carbon
will
not
be
released
into
the
atmosphere,
either
due
 to
anthropogenic
or
natural
causes,
after
it
has
been
bought
and
traded.
102 

Leakage
 speaks
 to
 the
 perverse
 incentive
 of
 receiving
 financial
 benefits
 by
 reducing
 deforestation
 in
 one
 location
 while
 displacing
 the
 forest
 carbon
 loss
 to
 another
 region.
103 

Non‐governmental
organizations,
private
think
tanks,
scientific
agencies,
 academia
and
national
governments
have
consistently
pointed
to
these
elements
of
REDD
 that
 are
 irreconcilable
 within
 free
 market
 practice
 and
 ideology.
 
 They
 literally
 generate
 carbon
 externalities
 that
 are
 unaccounted
 for
 in
 the
 developing
 institutional
 structure,
 and
 hence
 are
 fundamentally
 counter‐productive
 and
unsuccessful.
REDD‐readiness
 projects
 have
 been
 fraught
 with
 corruption,
 as
 seen
 in
 the
“carbon
 cowboy”
 scandals
 that
 paralyzed
 Papua
 New
 Guinea’s
 Office
 of
 Climate
Change
and
the
significant
shortcomings
of
the
Noel
Kempf
Mercado
Climate
Action
102 
(Ashton
&
Clairs,
2009;
VCS,
2008)
103 
(Ashton,
2008;
Streck,
Gomez‐Echeverri,
Gutman,
Loisel,
&
Werksman,
2009)

63
Project
 in
 Bolivia.
 
 The
 Clean
 Development
 Mechanism
 of
 the
 Kyoto
 Protocol
 has
 experienced
these
same
procedural
shortcomings
and
testifies
to
the
inadequacies
 of
 this
 economic
 strategy,
 where
 transaction
 processes
 are
 convoluted
 and
monitoring
and
reporting
is
weak.
104
Of
 notable
 concern
 is
 the
 assessment
 of
 Indonesia’s
 Ulu
 Masen
 Project,
 initiated
in
August
of
2007
with
a
goal
of
reducing
deforestation
by
85%,
avoiding
 the
 emission
 of
 an
 estimated
 3.3
 million
 tones
 of
 carbon
 and
 creating
 sustainable
 development
 opportunities
 for
 the
 nation’s
 poor
 and
 timber
 resource‐dependent
 communities.
105 
 
 Since
 extremely
 high
 rates
 of
 deforestation
 make
 Indonesia
 the
 third
largest
carbon
emitter
in
the
word,
a
successful
REDD
demonstration
project
 in
 this
 country
 would
 prove
 the
 mechanism’s
 capacity
 to
 achieve
 results
 globally,
 giving
 the
 Ulu
 Masen
 Project
 great
 importance.
 
 Yet
 efforts
 to
 avoid
 deforestation
 outside
of
the
Project’s
boundaries
have
been
largely
absent,
posing
serious
risks
of
 displacing
 forest
 loss‐related
 carbon
 emissions
 to
 another
 location
 while
 getting
 paid
to
do
so.

The
project
simply
“cannot
address
the
widespread
deforestation
for
 oil
palm
plantations
in
other
areas.” 106
However,
 the
 most
 crucially
 flawed
 component
 of
 the
 Ulu
 Masen
 Project,
 which
speaks
to
the
larger
concern
of
forming
REDD
around
free‐market
principles,
 is
the
concept
of
carbon
property
rights.

For
a
commodity
to
be
traded,
someone
or
 entity
must
own
it.

When
it
comes
to
carbon
in
soils,
dead
wood,
trees,
leaves
and
 detritus,
proof
of
ownership
becomes
extremely
difficult,
and
naturally
so,
for
it
has
104 
(Eliasch,
2008;
Karsenty,
2009)
105 
(Clarke,
2010)
106 
(Clarke,
2010,
p.
47)

64
 never
 been
 done
 before.
107 
 
 And
 consequently,
 the
 inherent
 inequalities
 built
 into
 free
enterprise
market
practices
that
favor
the
wealthy
few
to
the
disadvantage
of
 the
money‐poor
majority
clearly
have
manifested
in
the
Ulu
Masen
rainforest.

The
 international
 forest
 carbon
 market
 has
 been
 created
 and
 controlled
 by
 large
 financial
market
giants,
such
as
Merrill
Lynch
and
Macquerie
Bank
which
have
great
 investment
 ownership
 over
 this
 Indonesian
 forest.
 
 This
 “economic
 growth”
 will
 continue
 to
 generate
 more
 revenue
 for
 the
 wealthiest
 international
 firms
 while
 usurping
the
rights
to
a
commodity
which
they
themselves
have
created
and
which
 exists
 on
 the
 land
 of
 the
 poor
 communities
 they
 claim
 to
 be
 benefiting,
 all
 in
 the
 name
of
low‐cost
market
efficiency.

Indeed,
local
communities
have
yet
to
see
any
 of
 the
 proceeds.
 
 The
 clearly
 flawed
 REDD
 design
 is,
 unfortunately,
 of
 small
 consequence.

“Uncertainty
over
carbon
property
rights
creates
significant
obstacles
 for
the
economic
viability
of
any
REDD
project.

Without
clear
and
secure
rights
to
 sell
REDD
carbon
credits
to
third
parties,
significant
risk
is
unavoidable.” 108
STATE
The
vehicle
of
development
as
a
Eurocentric
epistemological
construct
that
 has
 both
 generated
 the
 concept
 of
 poverty
 and
 crafted
 its
 economic
 growth‐ centered
 solutions
 has
 largely
 been
 the
 modern
 nation‐state.
 
 Referred
 to
 as
 “the
 most
prominent
actor
in
development” 109 
and
“the
harbinger
and
main
instrument
 of
 social
 change,” 110 
 post‐development
 scholars
 view
 the
 state
 as
 a
 homogenizing
 entity
 that
 reinforces
 the
 discourse
 of
 the
 powerful
 to
 the
 exclusion
 of
 its
107 
(Lang,
2008)
108 
(Clarke,
2010,
p.
48)
109 
(Agrawal,
1995,
p.
4)
110 
(Nandy,
1992,
p.
265)

65
 alternatives.

The
state
has
always
been
seen
as
the
guarantor
of
modernized
living,
 well‐being
 and
 progress,
 without
 which
 society
 will
 fail
 to
 advance
 and
 be
 under
 constant
 threat
 from
 foreign
 forces.
 
 However,
 as
 discussed
 at
 length
 throughout
 this
 chapter,
 the
 broken
 promises
 of
 the
 state‐sponsored
 development
 paradigm
 and
 its
 frequently
 damaging
 results
 clearly
 identify
 the
 shortcomings
 of
 this
 discourse.

In
fact,
“in
a
number
of
cases,
the
development
of
the
state
has
been
the
 best
predictor
of
the
underdevelopment
of
society.” 111
Yet
 despite
 this
 crippling
 deficiency,
 the
 state
 stands
 to
 assume
 central
 importance
 in
 the
 REDD
 mechanism
 without
 measures
 to
 address
 these
 inadequacies.
 
 In
 truth,
 the
 criticism
 that
 a
 national
 government
 consumes
 the
 resources
 made
 available
 through
 the
 development
 agenda
 without
 equitable
 distribution
or
access
makes
this
reality
unsurprising.
112 

As
mentioned
in
chapter
2,
REDD
currently
relies
on
significantly
enhancing
the
state’s
institutional
capacity
in
 order
to
provide
a
bridge
between
the
realized
ground‐level
emissions
reductions
 and
 their
 required
 financial
 revenues,
 whether
 as
 direct
 payments
 or
 as
 tradable
 carbon
 credits.
 
 REDD‐related
 activities
 must
 fit
 within
 the
 national
 vision
 of
 development
 as
 dictated
 in
 large
 part
 by
 the
 state.
 
 From
 the
 post‐development
 perspective,
this
perpetuates
the
institutionalized
culture
of
knowledge
that
placed
 the
state
as
the
arbiter
of
progress
and
modernity
in
the
first
place,
driving
the
need
 to
develop
at
all
costs.

Hence,
it
can
no
more
serve
the
well‐being
of
its
citizens
in
111 
(Nandy,
1992,
p.
270)
112 
(Nandy,
1992)

66
 its
current
form
of
forest
conservation
than
it
did
in
the
past
with
its
failed
efforts
at
 poverty
alleviation.
Additionally,
the
state’s
facilitative
role
of
market‐led
growth
strategies
only
 compounds
 the
 consequences
 this
 structural
 arrangement
 presents
 to
 the
 new
REDD
apparatus.

Instead
of
signaling
a
distancing
from
free‐market
enterprise,
the
 undeniable
collaboration
between
market
and
state
is
simply
being
reaffirmed
and
 expressed
under
the
guise
of
forest
resource
conservation.

“The
state
does
not
work
 against
 the
 market.
 
 Rather,
 it
 is
 a
 complementary
 institutional
 device
 which
 promotes
 the
 extension
 of
 the
 market.” 113 
 
 And
 with
 this
 association
 comes
 the
 powerful
 influences
 of
 global
 market
 players,
 outlined
 in
 detail
 in
 chapter
 2.
 
 The
 relationship
 between
 government
 and
 private
 industry
 has
 become
 completely
 symbiotic,
 where
 legislative
 support
 requires
 international
 capital
 and
 vice
 versa.
The
 fact
 that
 this
 institutional
 arrangement,
 reinforced
 by
 capital
 and
 political
 power,
offers
promise
to
REDD
supporters
because
it
has
yet
to
be
applied
to
forest
 ecosystems
 must
 not
 distract
 international
 attention
 away
 from
 its
 well‐known
 history
 of
 being
 completely
 unsustainable.
 
 Accordingly,
 alternatives
 should
 be
 explored
immediately.
SCIENCE
The
 technocratic
 underpinnings
 of
 the
 international
 development
 agenda
 represent
the
third
major
element
to
which
post‐development
thinkers
direct
their
 analysis
 in
 both
 explaining
 the
 epistemological
 basis
 of
 this
 global
 discourse
 and
113 
(Berthoud,
1992,
p.
73)

67
 exploring
 the
 theoretical
 and
 practical
 space
 for
 the
 expression
 of
 its
 many
 alternatives.
 
 As
 development
 was
 and
 continues
 to
 be
 a
 project
 based
 on
 the
 ideologies
 of
 progress,
 advancement
 and
 modernity,
 science
 was
 the
 answer
 capable
of
delivering
the
results.

Supported
by
the
state
through
social,
cultural
and
 economic
 initiatives,
 modern
 science
 offered
 the
 practical
 tools
 needed
 to
 lift
 a
 country
 out
 of
 poverty
 and
 into
 the
 developed
 age
 of
 wealth,
 health
 and
 material
 consumption.
114
The
reason
given
as
to
why
the
newly
defined
“underdeveloped”
nations
still
 had
 not
 achieved
 this
 on
 their
 own,
 in
 the
 dominant
 development
 discourse,
 was
 that
 this
 science,
 and
 the
 technical
 experts
 which
 espoused
 its
 philosophies
 and
 practices,
were
absent.

This
line
of
reasoning
reinforces
a
global
division
between
 those
who
“have”,
which
in
this
case
refers
to
a
specific
form
of
technical
knowledge,
 and
those
who
do
not.

In
identifying
entire
social
networks
as
“not
having”,
modern
 science
completely
ignores
the
enormous
diversity
of
what
they
do
indeed
possess
 in
terms
of
skills,
experience
and
practices.

In
response,
the
development
apparatus
 produced
its
own
army
of
development
soldiers
to
spread
its
system
of
thinking
to
 the
 exclusion
 of
 knowledge
 forms
 embedded
 in
 cultures
 around
 the
 world.
Practices
 and
 philosophies
 from
 a
 non‐professional,
 non‐scientific
 background
 are
 perceived
 as
 flawed,
 deficient
 and
 a
 hindrance
 to
 progress
 and
 development.
Operating
 symbiotically,
 the
 development
 paradigm
 relied
 on
 the
 promises
 of
 efficiency
 and
 industrial
 strength
 offered
 by
 modern
 science
 just
 as
 the
 Western
 scientific
 worldview
 depended
 on
 a
 successful
 development
 institution
 for
 global
114 
(de
Senarclens,
1988)

68
 hegemony.
115 
 
 However,
 instead
 of
 achieving
 its
 purported
 beneficent
 global
 mission,
 many
 of
 the
 people
 intended
 as
 targets
 of
 the
 development
 agenda
 vigorously
reject
such
a
claim
and
interpret
its
impact
completely
as
the
opposite.
As
 expressed
 by
 international
 activist
 Vandana
 Shiva,
 “scientific
 knowledge,
 on
 which
the
development
process
is
based,
is
itself
a
source
of
violence.” 116
And
 once
 again,
 the
 success
 of
 the
 future
 REDD
 mechanism,
 as
 currently
 constructed,
depends
entirely
on
technocratic
principles.

For
large
sums
of
money
 to
 continue
 to
 flow
 towards
 developing
 countries
 with
 carbon‐rich
 forests,
 the
 wealthy
 industrialized
 nations
 require
 rigorous
 methodologies,
 scientific
 practices
 and
reports
to
guarantee
the
emissions
reductions
for
which
they
are
paying.

REDD
 is
crafted
around
the
advice
and
oversight
of
international
scientific
experts,
as
seen
 in
the
various
bodies
in
charge
of
its
development,
such
as
the
Subsidiary
Body
for
Scientific
and
Technological
Advice,
the
Consultative
Group
of
Experts
on
National
Communications
 from
 Parties
 and
 of
 course,
 the
 Intergovernmental
 Panel
 on
Climate
 Change.
 
 Yet
 in
 relation
 to
 the
 communities
 that
 represent
 non‐scientific
 expertise,
 namely
 the
 indigenous
 social
 networks
 found
 throughout
 the
 world’s
 forestlands,
 the
 Copenhagen
 Draft
 Decision
 outlining
 REDD’s
 methodological
 guidance
 only
 recognizes
 the
 “ potential 
 contribution
 of
 their
 knowledge
 [italics
 added]”
 to
 the
 process.
117 
 
 Again,
 knowledge‐rich
 communities
 have
 been
 marginalized
in
the
name
of
the
efficient,
foolproof
scientific
ethic.

Ironically,
they
 are
casted
once
again
as
direct
beneficiaries.
115 
(Alvares,
1992)
116 
(Shiva,
1989,
p.
162)
117 
(UNFCCC,
2009b)

69
And
yet,
gaining
access
to
and
participating
in
this
technocratic
structure
will
 become
increasingly
less
and
less
possible
for
the
world’s
poor
majority.

The
new
 breed
 of
 carbon
 experts
 has
 begun
 filling
 a
 niche
 within
 various
 fields
 of
 already
 established
 advanced
 scientific
 disciplines.
 
 The
 instruments
 deemed
 essential
 to
 global
 forest
 carbon
 monitoring
 are
 becoming
 increasingly
 cost‐intensive
 and
 remote.

Planes,
satellites,
and
computers
drive
the
methodologies
for
establishing
 country
emissions
baselines,
forest
carbon
inventorying,
carbon
flux
and
long‐term
 emissions
 trends.
 
 As
 the
 practice
 of
 global
 forest
 carbon
 science
 becomes
 increasingly
 concentrated
 in
 the
 hands
 of
 a
 select
 community
 of
 technical
 international
 experts,
 the
 viability
 of
 alternative
 perspectives
 for
 carbon
 management
and
sustainable
land
use
that
are
more
locally
identified
and
culturally
 situated
declines.

In
the
unquestioning
belief
in
modern
science’s
ability
to
generate
 solutions
 to
 all
 problems
 lies
 its
 hubris,
 along
 with
 the
 impending
 failure
 of
 the
REDD
 mechanism
 if
 not
 critically
 addressed.
 
 Under
 this
 arrangement
 of
 market,
 state
 and
 science,
 REDD
 stands
 on
 the
 verge
 of
 becoming
 the
 most
 complete
 expression
of
traditional
development
ideology
in
the
21 st 
century.
3.4
Sustainable
Forest
Management
in
REDD:
Daring
for
a
Post­Development
Approach
Throughout
 this
 analysis
 I
 have
 consistently
 qualified
 the
 critiques
 of
 the
 current
REDD
mechanism
with
an
acknowledgement
that
its
structure
is
still
taking
 shape,
 and
 as
 such,
 its
 significant
 shortcomings
 have
 not
 been
 guaranteed.
 
 Much
 work
remains
as
the
UNFCCC
negotiations
continue
to
carve
out
a
post‐2012
Kyoto
Protocol
 arrangement
 for
 addressing
 climate
 change
 within
 the
 broader
 goal
 of

70
 promoting
 global
 sustainable
 development.
 
 In
 this
 regard,
 it
 becomes
 even
 more
 imperative
 to
 not
 only
 recognize
 the
 criticisms
 but
 move
 beyond
 by
 envisioning
 alternative
 solutions
 and
 possibilities
 for
 comprehensive
 and
 diverse
 modes
 of
reducing
threats
to
tropical
forests
and
financially
poor
human
communities.
The
Sustainable
Forest
Management
ideology
advances
many
components
of
 an
 inclusive,
 flexible
 and
 diverse
 conceptualization
 of
 natural
 resource
 use
 and
 community
engagement
that
qualify
it
as
an
expression
of
post‐development
theory
 and
 practice.
 
 Without
 promoting
 a
 formula
 of
 discrete
 resource
 uses,
 values
 and
 meanings,
Sustainable
Forest
Management
operates
according
to
the
exact
language
 of
post‐development
practitioners
who
espouse
notions
of
“plurality”
and
“multiple
 narratives.”

It
seeks
to
build
frameworks
for
forest
resource
use
out
of
culturally‐ based
systems
of
knowledge
that
have
the
ability
to
incorporate
values
beyond
the
 market,
 ownership
 beyond
 the
 state
 and
 experiences
 beyond
 those
 of
 foreign
 technical
 experts.
 
 With
 that
 being
 said,
 operating
 from
 an
 understanding
 of
 traditional
knowledge
as
being
static
and
idealizing
its
non‐Western
nature
must
be
 avoided.
 
 Just
 as
 traditional
 forms
 of
 knowledge
 have
 proven
 to
 be
 extremely
responsive
to
the
practices
and
ideologies
of
the
dominant
development
discourse,
 the
SFM
concept
must
be
able
to
develop
 from 
the
socio‐cultural
characteristics
of
 the
locality
in
which
it
seeks
to
operate.

Through
this
approach
will
SFM
have
the
 potential
to
explore
what
Escobar
calls
its
“cultural
productivity.” 118
118 
(Escobar,
1994,
p.
51)

71
This
 is
 not
 to
 suppose
 that
 various
 elements
 of
 the
 dominant
 development
 apparatus
 cannot
 compliment
 the
 paradigm
 shift
 that
 SFM
 represents.
 
 Indeed,
 much
 of
 the
 criticism
 directed
 at
 the
 post‐development
 community
 focuses
 on
 its
 essentialist
arguments
that
everything
under
the
development
sun
is
flawed.

Post‐ development
 scholars
 have
 been
 charged
 with
 themselves
 being
 victims
 of
 their
 own
 critique
 by
 failing
 to
 recognize
 the
 heterogeneity
 of
 the
 traditional
 development
agenda.

In
this
context,
the
growing
field
of
what
has
become
known
 as
 Endogenous
 Development
 offers
 a
 wealth
 of
 potential.
 
 “Endogenous
 development
is
based
on
local
peoples’
own
criteria
of
development,
and
takes
into
 account
the
material,
social
and
spiritual
well‐being
of
peoples.” 119 

Spanning
both
 the
 global
 North
 and
 South,
 endogenous
 development
 practitioners
 base
 their
 initiatives
on
the
requirement
for
local
control
in
the
entire
development
process,
 building
 upon
 cultural
 strengths
 and
 forms
 of
 knowledge
 that
 make
 “peoples’
 worldviews
 and
 livelihood
 strategies
 the
 starting
 point
 for
 development.” 120 
 
 This
 approach
signals
a
very
coherent
and
clear
alternative
to
the
hegemonic
knowledge
 system
 that
 created
 and
 guides
 conventional
 development
 interventions.
 
 Even
 further,
it
does
not
operate
to
the
exclusion
of
Western
epistemologies.

Endogenous
 development
 promoters
 embrace
 the
 elements
 of
 Western
 knowledge
 that
strengthens
and
compliments
the
revitalization
of
ancestral
and
local
narratives.
In
this
context,
the
main
weaknesses
of
SFM
can
be
identified
and
avoided.
By
 seeking
 to
 make
 SFM
 more
 economically
 attractive
 through
 price‐valuation
119 
(COMPAS,
2010)
120 
(COMPAS,
2010)

72
strategies,
this
paradigm
of
natural
resource
management
will
assume
the
market‐ dominant
structure
to
which
it
is
able
to
present
an
alternative.

SFM
will
lose
its
 potential
 to
 represent
 post‐development
 thinking
 if
 all
 resources
 must
 be
 quantifiable
 and
 commoditized
 according
 to
 prices
 that
 the
 market
 recognizes.
Additionally,
 the
 metric
 of
 “sustainable”
 must
 shift
 away
 from
 a
 definition
 dependent
 on
 foreign
 scientific
 terms
 and
 towards
 one
 that
 complements
 the
 understanding
 of
 sustainability
 within
 the
 social
 networks
 directly
 responsible
 or
 affected
 by
 forest
 management.
 
 Sustainability
 can
 no
 longer
 seek
 to
 operate
 according
 to
 one
 definition.
 The
 enormous
 diversity
 of
 worldviews
 and
 epistemologies
 must
 be
 actively
 engaged
 if
 Sustainable
 Forest
 Management
 is
 to
 constructively
 guide
 the
 REDD
 mechanism
 in
 a
 direction
 that
 helps
 protect
 the
 earth’s
 climatic
 balance,
 safeguard
 forest
 ecosystems
 and
 strengthen
 human
 communities.

73
CONCLUSION
One
 decade
 into
 the
 new
 millennium,
 the
 planet
 finds
 itself
 facing
 an
 increasingly
ominous
set
of
contradictions.

Despite
advancements
in
the
science
of
 biotechnology
and
the
ever‐broadened
globalized
food
system,
the
world
saw
a
12%
 increase
in
global
chronic
hunger
from
2008
to
2009.
121 

Along
with
record
levels
of
 corporate
 profits
 and
 the
 same
 set
 of
 international
 growth‐oriented
 economic
 initiatives,
income
inequalities
between
developed
and
developing
nations
continue
 to
widen.
122 

And
in
the
face
of
international
climate
change
negotiations,
mounting
 scientific
 evidence
 of
 anthropogenic
 warming
 trends
 and
 their
 impacts
 on
 human
 and
natural
systems,
multilateral
monetary
institutions
carry
on
funding
new
mega‐ capacity,
 fossil
 fuel‐based
 energy
 projects
 around
 the
 world.
 
 It
 is
 within
 this
 increasingly
 complex
 global
 paradox
 that
 REDD
 must
 find
 its
 place,
 purporting
 to
 address
 the
 loss
 of
 extremely
 diverse
 biological
 systems,
 mitigate
 the
 effects
 of
 a
 rapidly
changing
climate
and
provide
incentives
for
the
sustainable
development
of
 participating
nations.
This
paper
has
investigated
the
multiple
reasons
behind
the
rapid
rise
of
the
REDD
 concept
 to
 international
 prominence.
 
 A
 synthesis
 of
 conservation
 and
 development
ideologies,
REDD
represents
the
newest
brainchild
of
the
international
 community
 which
 seeks
 continually
 to
 find
 ways
 to
 blend
 the
 needs
 of
 human
 communities
and
ecological
systems
in
the
pursuit
of
sustainable
development.

The
 proliferation
 of
 regional
 Criteria
 and
 Indicator
 standards
 for
 sustainable
 forest
121 
(Pappas,
2010)
122 
(Broad
&
Cavanagh,
2009)

74
 management
 and
 their
 international
 support
 from
 UN
 agencies
 surrounding
 the
1992
 Earth
 Summit
 marks
 the
 beginning
 of
 the
 association
 between
 forests
 and
 development.

However,
the
multiple
causes
of
global
deforestation
and
degradation
 prevented
a
coherent
approach
to
solving
the
problem
and
protecting
increasingly
 threatened
forest
ecosystems.

Carbon,
therefore,
quickly
became
the
unifying
focal
 point
 of
 these
 two
 discourses,
 serving
 as
 the
 organizing
 principle
 for
 both
 conservation
and
international
development
activities.

Further,
it
has
continued
to
 demonstrate
its
central
position
in
global
environment
and
development
dialogues
 through
 the
 rising
 number
 of
 nations
 formulating
 their
 own
 low‐carbon
development
strategies.
With
 the
 2007
 13 th 
 Conference
 of
 the
 Parties
 to
 the
 UNFCCC
 firmly
 establishing
 the
 international
 community’s
 commitment
 to
 creating
 a
 REDD
 mechanism,
 negotiations
 have
 sought
 to
 refine
 and
 come
 to
 an
 agreement
 on
 its
 scope,
 funding
 arrangements,
 distribution
 mechanisms
 and
 reference
 scenarios.
Although
REDD’s
role
as
a
future
climate
mitigation
tool
has
been
confirmed
by
the
2009
Copenhagen
Accord,
its
functionality
remains
to
be
designed.

To
further
this
 goal,
REDD‐readiness
programs
are
well
underway
in
over
nine
countries
to
serve
 as
pilot
projects
from
which
REDD
professionals
can
learn
what
indeed
is
successful
 and
what
elements
need
to
be
improved.

Institutions
and
organizations
at
all
levels
 of
governance,
from
the
World
Bank
to
indigenous
communities,
have
been
involved
 in
various
capacities.

However,
very
clear
trends
exist
in
regards
to
the
form
REDD
 will
assume.

These
include
the
preparation
of
REDD
to
integrate
into
international
 markets
via
carbon
trading,
the
reinvestment
of
significant
authority
back
into
state

75
 institutions
 and
 the
 positioning
 of
 a
 small
 community
 of
 technical
 experts
 as
 the
 main
implementers
of
REDD
initiatives.

As
this
paper
argues,
such
trends
signal
less
 of
 a
 novel
 approach
 to
 conservation
 and
 sustainable
 development
 than
 merely
 a
 rearrangement
 of
 the
 dominant
 neoliberal
 development
 ideology
 that
 has
 led
 to
 widespread
international
failure.
In
 response,
 this
 paper
 emphasizes
 that
 REDD’s
 contribution
 to
 this
 global
 effort
 to
 reduce
 greenhouse
 gas
 emissions
 can
 be
 seriously
 undermined
 if
 its
 architecture
 mirrors
 the
 traditional
 development
 model
 of
 an
 approach
 based
 heavily
 on
 free
 markets,
 guided
 by
 state‐centered
 interests
 and
 reinforced
 by
Western
scientific
hegemony.

The
post‐development
perspective
offers
alternative
 discourses
 and
 power
 relationships
 that
 dismantle
 the
 standardized
 development
 model
and
engender
space
for
marginalized
worldviews.

It
is
through
this
lens
that
I
investigate
the
capacity
for
Sustainable
Forest
Management
to
operate
according
 to
 post‐development
 principles
 and
 guide
 the
 process
 of
 shaping
 REDD’s
 various
 components.

This
approach
to
forest
resource
use,
which
has
been
included
in
the
REDD
 mechanism
 as
 a
 mitigation
 option,
 has
 begun
 to
 shift
 away
 from
 the
 traditional
 timber‐dominant
 perspective
 to
 one
 that
 engages
 in
 forestland
 management
at
the
landscape
level.

It
considers
the
forest
as
a
multi‐resource
asset
 with
both
price‐valued
products
and
values
incompatible
with
traditional
economic
 metrics.
 
 Additionally,
 SFM
 expands
 beyond
 private
 ownership
 and
 operates
 according
to
multiple
stakeholder
management
that
is
influenced
by
a
diversity
of
 worldviews,
experiences
and
forms
of
knowledge.

While
defining
and
implementing

76
SFM
continues
to
face
many
challenges,
its
adaptable
and
inclusive
ideology
must
be
 emphasized
within
global
REDD
initiatives.
As
 this
 paper
 explores
 the
 potential
 for
 Sustainable
 Forest
 Management
 to
 operate
 according
 to
 post‐development
 principles
 and
 therefore
 successfully
 influence
 the
 larger
 REDD
 mechanism,
 it
 must
 be
 recognized
 that
 SFM
 represents
 only
 a
 component
 of
 the
 institutional
 structure
 that
 has
 yet
 to
 be
 finalized.
 
 An
 expanded
scope
of
Reducing
Emissions
from
Deforestation
and
Degradation,
REDD‐ plus
 incorporates
 the
 “conservation
 of
 forest
 carbon
 stocks”
 and
 “enhancement
 of
 forest
 carbon
 stocks”
 as
 two
 activities
 that
 qualify
 for
 financial
 support
 under
 the
UNFCCC.
123 
 
 These
 two
 land
 use
 practices
 also
 must
 be
 actively
 interpreted
 and
 expressed
 through
 a
 post‐development
 lens
 to
 avoid
 being
 defined
 and
 implemented
 according
 to
 the
 singular
 epistemology
 of
 traditional
 international
 development.
 
 As
 such,
 more
 research
 must
 focus
 on
 the
 ideologies
 underpinning
 these
structural
elements
as
the
UNFCCC
continues
its
international
negotiations
to
 establish
a
climate
regime
and
situate
REDD
as
a
prominent
tool.
I
hope
that
this
paper
will
inspire
similar
scholarship
that
seeks
to
challenge
 the
hegemonic
architectural
forces
of
the
REDD
apparatus
and
promote
a
dialogue
 responsive
 to
 a
 multitude
 of
 narratives
 from
 across
 the
 globe.
 
 Various
 REDD‐ readiness
projects
already
underway
have
begun
to
at
least
acknowledge
the
need
 to
 engage
 the
 skills
 and
 perspectives
 of
 community‐level
 citizens.
 
 The
 readiness
 initiative
 taking
 place
 in
 the
 Oddar
 Meanchey
 Province
 of
 Cambodia
 is
 currently
123 
(UNFCCC,
2009c,
p.
3)

77
 being
 constructed
 principally
 around
 the
 activities
 of
 Community
 Forestry
Management
 Committees
 (CFMC),
 led
 by
 local
 stakeholders
 and
 forest
 resource
 users.
124 
 
 As
 such
 projects
 are
 still
 in
 their
 infancy,
 the
 relationship
 between
 the
 dominant
 development
 discourse
 and
 alternative
 epistemologies
 that
 forms
 their
 institutional
 structure
 must
 be
 continually
 assessed
 as
 it
 evolves.
 
 Such
 an
 arrangement
may
be
the
stepping‐stone
within
a
longer
process
of
conceptualizing
 and
 creating
 a
 post‐development
 approach
 to
 reducing
 emissions
 from
 deforestation
 and
 forest
 degradation.
 
 The
 optimism
 inherent
 in
 this
 pursuit
 is
 reinforced
 by
 scholar
 Majid
 Rahnema
 when
 he
 states,
 “the
 end
 of
 development
 should
not
be
seen
as
an
end
to
the
search
for
new
possibilities
of
change…
it
should
 only
mean
that
the
binary,
the
mechanistic,
the
reductionist,
the
inhumane
and
the
 ultimately
 self‐destructive
 approach
 to
 change
 is
 over.” 125 
 
 Only
 through
 a
 constructive
 critique
 of
 principles
 and
 practices
 which
 have
 proven
 unsuccessful
 can
alternatives
for
a
sustainable
future
be
envisioned
and
articulated.
124 
(Poffenberger,
De
Gryze,
&
Durschinger,
2009)
125 
(Rahnema,
1997,
p.
391)

78
WORKS
CITED
"CONFENIAE",
C.
d.
N.
I.
d.
l.
A.
E.
(August
3,
2009).
Puyo
Statement .
Adaptation
 of
 Forests
 and
 People
 to
 Climate
 Change­
 A
 Global
 Assessment
 Report 
 (2009).
 Helsinki:
International
Union
of
Forest
Research
Organizations.
Agarwal,
B.
(2001).
Participatory
Exclusions,
Community
Forestry,
and
Gender:
An
Analysis
for
South
Asia
and
a
Conceptual
Framework.
World
Development,
29 (10),
1623‐1648.
Agenda
21 
(1992).
Rio
de
Janeiro:
Rio
Declaration
on
Environment
and
Development.
Agrawal,
A.
(1995).
Dismantling
the
Divide
between
Indigenous
and
Scientific
Knowledge .
Gainesville:
University
of
Floriday.
Agrawal,
 A.
 (2005).
 Environmentality:
 Community,
 intimate
 government,
 and
 the
 making
 of
 environmental
subjects
in
Kumaon,
India.
Current
Anthropology,
46 (2),
161‐190.
Alvares,
C.
(1992).
Science.
In
W.
Sachs
(Ed.),
 The
Development
Dictionary:
A
guide
to
knowledge
as
 power .
London:
Zed
Books.
Aplet,
G.
(1995).
The
Challenge
of
Sustainable
Forest
Management.
[Book
Review].
Forest
Ecology
and
Management,
74 ,
245‐246.
Ashton,
 R.
 (2008).
How
 to
 Include
 Terrestrial
 Carbon
 in
 Developing
 Nations
 in
 the
 Overall
 Climate
Change
Solution :
The
Terrestrial
Carbon
Group.
Ashton,
R.,
&
Clairs,
T.
(2009).
Legal
and
Institutional
Foundations
for
the
National
Implementation
of
REDD .
Bank,
 W.
 (2009).
 The
 Forest
 Carbon
 Partnership
 Facility
 Retrieved
 10/4/09,
 2009,
 from
 http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/
Barboza,
 L.
 (2003).
 Save
 the
 Rainforest!
 
 NGOs
 and
 Grassroots
 Organizations
 in
 the
 Dialectics
 of
Brazilian
Amazonia.
International
Social
Science
Journal,
178 ,
583‐591.
Berthoud,
G.
(1992).
Market.
In
W.
Sachs
(Ed.),
 The
Development
Dictionary:
A
guide
to
knowledge
as
 power .
London:
Zed
Books.
Broad,
 R.,
 &
 Cavanagh,
 J.
 (2009).
Development
 Redefined:
 How
 the
 Market
 Met
 its
 Match .
 Boulder:
Paradigm.
Bumpus,
A.
G.,
&
Liverman,
D.
M.
(2008).
Accumulation
by
Decarbonization
and
the
Governance
of
Carbon
Offsets.
Economic
Geography,
84 (2),
127‐155.
Chapin,
M.
(2004).
A
Challenge
to
Conservationists.
World
Watch,
November/December .
Clarke,
R.
A.
(2010).
Moving
the
REDD
Debate
From
Theory
to
Practice:
Lessons
learned
from
the
Ulu
Masen
Project.
Law,
Environment
and
Development
Journal,
6 (1).
Climate
Funds
Update.

Retrieved
October
2,
2009,
from
 http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/Home
COMPAS
 (2010).
 COMPAS:
 Endogenous
 Development
 Retrieved
 3/28/2010,
 2010,
 from
 http://www.compasnet.org/
Convention
 on
 Biological
 Diversity
 (2009).
 
 Retrieved
 September
 24,
 2009,
 from
 https:// www.cbd.int/forest/what.shtml
Daly,
 H.
 E.
 (1998).
 Sustainable
 Growth:
 An
 impossibility
 theorem.
 In
 J.
 S.
 Dryzek
 &
 D.
 Schlosberg
(Eds.),
 Debating
 the
 Earth:
 The
 environmental
 politics
 reader .
 Oxford:
 Oxford
 University
Press.
de
 Senarclens,
 P.
 (1988).
 How
 the
 United
 Nations
 Promotes
 Development
 Through
 Technical
Assistance.
In
M.
Rahnema
&
V.
Bawtree
(Eds.),
 The
Post­Development
Reader .
London:
Zed
Books.
Development
and
Climate
Change,
W.
G.
o.
(2009).
Other
Worlds
are
Possible:
Human
progress
in
an
 age
of
climate
change .
England:
New
Economics
Foundation
International
Institute
for
Environment
and
Development.
Development,
W.
C.
o.
E.
a.
(1987).
Our
Common
Future .
Oxford:
World
Commission
on
Environment
 and
Development.
Don't
Forget
the
Second
"D" 
(June
2009).
The
Nature
Conservancy.
dos
 Santos,
 T.
 (1970).
 The
 Structure
 of
 Dependence.
 In
 M.
 A.
 Seligson
 &
 J.
 T.
 Passe‐Smith
 (Eds.),
Development
and
Underdevelopment:
The
Political
Economy
of
Global
Inequality 
(Third
ed.).
Boulder:
Lynne
Rienner.

79
Durham,
 W.
 H.
 (1994).
 Political
 Ecology
 and
 Environmental
 Destruction
 in
 Latin
 America.
 In
 M.
Painter
 &
 W.
 H.
 Durham
 (Eds.),
 The
 Social
 Causes
 of
 Environmental
 Destruction
 in
 Latin
America .
Ann
Arbor:
University
of
Michigan
Press.
Edelman,
M.
(1999).
The
Rise
and
Demise
of
a
Tropical
Welfare
State
 Peasants
against
Globalization .
Stanford:
Standford
University
Press.
Eliasch,
J.
(2008).
The
Eliasch
Review .
London:
Office
of
Climate
Change.
Escobar,
 A.
 (1994).
Encountering
 Development:
 The
 Making
 and
 Unmaking
 of
 the
 Third
 World .
Princeton:
Princeton
University
Press.
Escobar,
 A.
 (1995).
Encountering
 Development:
 The
 making
 and
 unmaking
 of
 the
 third
 world .
Princeton:
Princeton
University
Press.
Escobar,
A.
(2005).
'Post‐Development'
as
Concept
and
Social
Practice.
In
A.
Ziai
(Ed.),
 Exploring
Post­
Development:
Theory
and
practice,
problems
and
perspectives .
London:
Routledge.
Esteva,
G.
(1992).
Development.
In
W.
Sachs
(Ed.),
 The
Development
Dictionary:
A
Guide
to
Knowledge
 as
Power .
London:
Zed
Books.
Evans,
S.
(1999).
The
Environment
Problem
 The
Green
Republic .
Austin:
University
of
Texas
Press.
FAO
(2006).
Global
Forest
Resources
Assessment
2005 .
Rome:
FAO.
Food
 and
 Agriculture
 Organization
 of
 the
 United
 Nations
 (2009).
 
 Retrieved
 September
 24,
 2009,
 from
 http://www.fao.org/forestry/home/en/
Forest,
 E.
 (2009).
 Forest
 Europe:
 Ministerial
 Conference
 on
 the
 Protection
 of
 Forests
 in
 Europe
Retrieved
1/24/2010,
2010,
from
 http://www.mcpfe.org/eng/
Forum
 on
 Forests,
 U.
N.
(2010).
Retrieved
 1/23/2010,
 2010,
 from
 http://www.un.org/esa/forests/ipf_iff.html
Gibson‐Graham,
J.
K.
(2005).
Surplus
Possibilities:
Post‐development
and
community
economies.
In
A.
 Ziai
 (Ed.),
 Exploring
 Post­Development:
 Theory
 and
 practice,
 problems
 and
 perspectives .
London:
Routledge.
Harrison,
 L.
 E.
 (1985).
 Underdevelopment
 Is
 a
 State
 of
 Mind.
 In
 M.
 A.
 Seligson
 &
 J.
 T.
 Passe‐Smith
(Eds.),
 Development
 and
 Underdevelopment:
 The
 Political
 Economy
 of
 Global
 Inequality 
 (2
 ed.).
Boulder:
Lynne
Reinner.
Hickey,
G.
M.
(2008).
Evaluating
Sustainable
Forest
Management.
Ecological
Indicators,
8 ,
109‐114.
Igoe,
 J.
 (2004).
 Fortress
 Conservation:
 A
 Social
 History
 of
 National
 Parks
 Conservation
 and
Globalization .
Belmont:
Wadsworth
and
Thompson.
Igoe,
 J.,
 &
 Brockington,
 D.
 (2007).
 Neoliberal
 Conservation:
 A
 Brief
 Introduction.
Conservation
 and
Society,
5 (4),
432‐449.
ITTO,
 I.
 T.
 T.
 O.
 (2004‐2010).
 Sustaining
 Tropical
 Forests
 Retrieved
 1/24/2010,
 2010,
 from
 http://www.itto.int/
Kant,
 S.
 S.
 (2004).
 Economics
 of
 Sustainable
 Forest
 Management.
 [Editorial].
Forest
 Policy
 and
Economics,
6 ,
197‐203.
Karsenty,
A.
(2009).
What
the
(Carbon)
Market
Cannot
Do...
Paris:
CIRAD.
Lang,
C.
(2008).
The
Private
Sector
and
REDD:
Turning
liabilities
into
assests.
REDD
Monitor ,
2010,
 from
 http://www.redd‐monitor.org/2008/12/04/the‐private‐sector‐and‐redd‐turning‐ liabilities‐into‐assets/
Lang,
 C.
 (2009).
 REDD‐MONITOR
 Retrieved
 November
 15,
 2009,
 from
 http://www.redd‐ monitor.org/tag/sustainable‐forest‐management/
Langholz,
J.
(2003).
Privatizing
Conservation.
In
S.
R.
e.
a.
Brechin
(Ed.),
 Contested
Nature:
Promoting
International
 Biodiversity
 with
 Social
 Justice
 in
 the
 Twenty­First
 Century .
 Albany:
 State
University
of
New
York
Press.
Latouche,
S.
(1997).
Paradoxical
Growth.
In
M.
Rahnema
&
V.
Bawtree
(Eds.),
 The
Post­Development
Reader .
London:
Zed
Books.
Levine,
A.
(2002).
Convergence
or
Convenience?

International
Conservation
NGOs
and
Development
Assistance
in
Tanzania.
World
Development,
30 (6),
1043‐1055.
Ljungman,
 C.
 L.
 S.,
 Martin,
 R.
 M.,
 &
 Whiteman,
 A.
 (1999).
Beyond
 Sustainable
 Forest
 Management:
Opportunities
and
Challenges
for
Improving
Forest
Management
in
the
Next
Millenium .
Rome:
Food
and
Agriculture
Organization.
McDonald,
 G.
 T.,
 &
 Lane,
 M.
 B.
 (2004).
 Converging
 Global
 Indicators
 for
 Sustainable
 Forest
Management.
Forest
Policy
and
Economics,
6 ,
63‐70.

80
Montreal
 Process,
 W.
 G.
 (1998).
 Criteria
 and
 Indicators
 for
 the
 Conservation
 and
 Sustainable
Management
 of
 Temperate
 and
 Boreal
 Forests
 Retrieved
 1/24/2010,
 2010,
 from
 http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/mpci/rep‐pub/1995/santiago_e.html
Montreal
 Process,
 W.
 G.
 (1998‐2005).
 The
 Montreal
 Process
 Retrieved
 1/23/2010,
 2010,
 from
 http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/mpci/home_e.html
Nakano,
 Y.
 (2005).
 On
 the
 Singular
 Name
 of
 Post‐Development.
 In
 A.
 Ziai
 (Ed.),
 Exploring
 Post­
Development:
Theory
and
practice,
problems
and
perspectives .
London:
Routledge.
Nandy,
 A.
 (1992).
 State.
 In
 W.
 Sachs
 (Ed.),
 The
 Development
 Dictionary:
 A
 guide
 to
 knowledge
 as
 power .
London:
Zed
Books.
Oliver,
 C.
 D.
 (2003).
 Sustainable
 Forestry:
 What
 is
 it?
 How
 do
 we
 achieve
 it?
Journal
 of
 Forestry,
101 (5),
8‐14.
Our
 Forests
 Our
 Future 
 (1999).
 Winnipeg:
 World
 Commission
 on
 Forests
 and
 Sustainable
Development.
Pappas,
S.
(2010).
Global
Chronic
Hunger
Rises
Above
1
Billion .
Washington
DC:
Worldwatch
Institute.
Parfitt,
 T.
 (2002).
The
 End
 of
 Development?
 
 Modernity,
 Post­Modernity
 and
 Development .
 London:
Pluto
Press.
Pearce,
D.,
Putz,
F.
E.,
&
Vanclay,
J.
K.
(2003).
Sustainable
Forestry
in
the
Tropics:
Panacea
or
Folly?
Forest
Ecology
and
Management,
172 ,
229‐247.
Poffenberger,
 M.,
 De
 Gryze,
 S.,
 &
 Durschinger,
 L.
 (2009).
Designing
 Collaborative
 REDD
 Projects:
 A
Case
Study
From
Oddar
Meanchey
Province,
Cambodia :
Community
Forestry
International.
Quick
Start
Actions
and
Establishment
of
the
Multi­Donor
Trust
Fund 
(May
2008).
United
Nations.
Rahnema,
M.
(1997).
Towards
Post‐Development:
Searching
for
signposts,
a
new
language
and
new
 paradigms.
In
M.
Rahnema
&
V.
Bawtree
(Eds.),
 The
Post­Development
Reader .
London:
Zed
Books.
Revised
 ITTO
 Criteria
 and
 Indicactors
 for
 the
 Sustainable
 Management
 of
 Tropical
 Forests 
 (2005).
International
Tropical
Timber
Organization.
Rice,
 R.
 E.,
 &
 Gullison,
 R.
 E.
 (1997).
 Can
 Sustainable
 Management
 Save
 Tropical
 Forests?
Scientific
American,
276 (4),
44.
Rostow,
 W.
 W.
 (1960).
The
 Stages
 of
 Economic
 Growth:
 a
 Non­Communist
 Manifesto .
 Cambridge:
University
Press.
Sachs,
W.
(1992).
Introduction.
In
W.
Sachs
(Ed.),
 The
Development
Dictionary:
A
guide
to
knowledge
 as
power .
London:
Zed
Books.
Santos,
B.
d.
S.
(2004).
The
WSF:
Toward
a
counter‐hegemonic
globalization.
In
J.
Sen,
A.
Anand,
A.
Escobar
 &
 P.
 Waterman
 (Eds.),
 World
 Social
 Forum:
 Challenging
 Empires .
 New
 Delhi:
 The
Viveka
Foundation.
Shiva,
 V.
 (1989).
 Western
 Science
 and
 its
 Destruction
 of
 Local
 Knowledge.
 In
 M.
 Rahnema
 &
 V.
Bawtree
(Eds.),
 The
Post­Development
Reader .
London:
Zed
Books.
Smith,
D.
M.,
Larson,
B.
C.,
Kelty,
M.
J.,
&
Ashton,
P.
M.
S.
(1997).
The
Practice
of
Silviculture:
Applied
Forest
Ecology .
New
York:
John
Wiley
&
Sons,
Inc.
State
of
the
World's
Forests
2007 
(2007).
Rome:
Food
and
Agricultural
Organization.
Streck,
 C.,
 Gomez‐Echeverri,
 L.,
 Gutman,
 P.,
 Loisel,
 C.,
 &
 Werksman,
 J.
 (2009).
REDD+
 Institutional
Options
Assessment .
The
Little
REDD+
Book 
(2009).
Oxford:
Global
Canopy
Programme.
UN
 Collaborative
 Programme
 on
 Reducing
 Emissions
 from
 Deforestation
 and
 Forest
 Degradation
 in
Developing
Countries
(UN­REDD) 
(2008).
FAO,
UNDP,
UNEP.
UNFCCC
 (1992).
United
 Nations
 Framework
 Convention
 on
 Climate
 Change .
 Paper
 presented
 at
 the
United
Nations
Conference
on
Environment
and
Development.
UNFCCC
(2009a).
Decision
‐/CP.15
Copenhagen
Accord
(pp.
6).
Copenhagen:
UNFCCC.
UNFCCC
 (2009b).
 Draft
 Decision:
 Methodological
 guidance
 for
 activities
 relating
 to
 reducing
 emissions
 from
 deforestation
 and
 forest
 degradation
 and
 the
 role
 of
 conservation,
 sustainable
management
of
forests
and
enhancement
of
forest
carbon
stocks
in
developing
 countries.
Copenhagen:
UNFCCC.
UNFCCC
(2009c).
FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/L.7/Add.6
:
UNFCCC.
VCS
 (2008).
Tool
 for
 AFOLU
 Non­Permanence
 Risk
 Analysis
 and
 Buffer
 Determination :
 Voluntary
Carbon
Standard.

81
Wallerstein,
I.
(1975).
The
Present
State
of
the
Debate
on
World
Inequality.
In
M.
A.
Seligson
&
J.
T.
Passe‐Smith
 (Eds.),
 Development
 and
 Underdevelopment:
 The
 Political
 Economy
 of
 Global
Inequality .
Boulder:
Lynne
Rienner.
Wang,
S.
(2004).
One
Hundred
Faces
of
Sustainable
Forest
Management.
Forest
Policy
and
Economics,
6 ,
205‐213.
Wang,
S.,
&
Wilson,
B.
(2007).
Pluralism
in
the
Economics
of
Sustainable
Forest
Management.
Forest
Policy
and
Economics,
9 ,
743‐750.
Wilson,
E.
O.
(2006).
The
Creation .
New
York:
W.
W.
Norton
and
Company.
Ziai,
 A.
 (2007).
 Development
 Discourse
 and
 its
 Critics.
 In
 A.
 Ziai
 (Ed.),
 Exploring
 Post­Development:
Theory
and
practice,
problems
and
perspectives .
London:
Routledge.