REDDuced: From sustainability to legality to units of carbon—The search for common interests in international forest governance

This paper examines the institutional history of international forest governance, from the emergence of global intergovernmental forestry forums, to non-state market-based certification schemes, to regional illegal logging initiatives, to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation and forest enhancement (REDD+) under the UNFCCC. It observes how the early initiatives were criticised for their failure to achieve coordinated and widespread action on forest conservation due to a lack of economic incentives and conflict over environmental and social priorities. This failure has been proceeded by a narrowing of core focus across each successive institution—from sustainability to legality to units of carbon—thereby transforming forest conservation into an increasingly legible and tradable commodity. Indeed, a wide range of environmental, economic and social actors appear to share the goal of making forest management more globally legible.This narrowing of focus, however, has served to displace rather than resolve a large array of environmental and social conflicts. The issues have been displaced across both space and time, generating a growing plethora of institutions involved in defining REDD+ modalities and “safeguards”, including various UN bodies and programmes, international development banks, private certification schemes and national and subnational governments. Meanwhile there is little evidence of whether, where and how these efforts might affect forest change. In fact, the largest impact of REDD+ may ultimately be the production of information to facilitate exchange among states, investors and other actors rather than achievement of shared global forest goals.

► Global forest governance has narrowed in focus from sustainability to carbon.
► Translating forests into carbon units creates an appearance of global transparency.
► Controversial environmental and social concerns have been reframed as “safeguards”.
► Resulting in a proliferation of safeguarding initiatives and new complexities.
► Hence flows of information increase but fail to facilitate global coordination.