Competing discourses on REDD +: Global debates versus the first Indian REDD + project

• I identify 3 sets of storylines in prominent scholarly and political REDD + debates.
• I focus on what REDD + should achieve, who should monitor it and how to finance it.
• These are not subject to debates among stakeholders of the Indian REDD + project.
• Stakeholders perceive different approaches to REDD + as mutually reinforcing.
• Discourses are diverse around the world and do not direct REDD + in one direction.

This article analyzes three of the most contentious scholarly and political debates regarding REDD +, focusing on 1) what REDD + should achieve; 2) who should monitor REDD + outcomes; and 3) how REDD + should be financed. In analyzing these, the article conceptualizes three sets of storylines and assesses which of the identified storylines resonate in the first Indian REDD + project, focusing on both stakeholders' views and project design. The three identified questions do not give rise to contentious debates among stakeholders of the REDD + project. Contrasting views on REDD + found in scholarly and political debates – such as carbon versus non-carbon objectives, authority of technical experts versus local communities, and market versus fund-based approaches – are not prevalent among project stakeholders, who believe that different approaches to REDD + can be combined and can even reinforce each other. Project stakeholders prefer non-carbon benefits as the project's main objective to be monitored jointly by experts and local communities, and favor a mix of fund- and market-based approaches. This is also reflected in the project design. The conclusion reflects on the insights that the multi-level discourse analysis in this article generated, including for REDD + in general.