Show Less
You do not have access to this content

Agents, Assumptions and Motivations Behind REDD+

Creating an International Forest Regime

Simone Lovera-Bilderbeek

​It was hoped that by paying forest dependent peoples and countries for their “service” of conserving their forests, REDD+ would lead to a reduction in deforestation greenhouse gases. The complexities have, however, left some ambiguities. It was never agreed who would pay for the program, and it has been criticized as ignoring the root causes of forest loss. Considering the motivations of those who promoted REDD+ this book proposes remedies to its shortfalls and recommends more efficient, equitable and effective conservation policies.
Show Summary Details
This content is available to you

Appendix 2: Interviewees

Simone Lovera-Bilderbeek

In total, 61 key stakeholders and rightsholders in international and national forest policy were interviewed. The selection of interviewees was based on the following criteria:

•   active knowledge of, and participation in, REDD+ regime design and/or implementation, either as a negotiator or as an observer;

•   balance between individuals working for States, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs);

•   balance between actors from different regions;

•   balance between critical (radical green) and reformist actors; and

•   at least one representative of each assumed agent.

Interviews took place under conditions of strict confidentiality and anonymity so as to allow actors to share their personal views rather than the official views of the government or organization they represented. Interviewees were thus able to share their personal views on the assumed effectiveness, efficiency and equity of REDD+, which is particularly important for analyzing the possible relevance of cognitivism and knowledge-based regime theories to REDD+. However, it means that it is difficult to classify the different responses and indicate whether they came from a government or a non-State actor, as anonymity would then no longer be guaranteed. Moreover, it would be incorrect to reveal interviewees’ professional background, as they were invited to speak in a personal capacity. Hence many interviewees expressed assumptions that first of all articulated their personal views and not necessarily the perception of their government, organization or movement. Several interviewees would probably have had to refuse an interview if they had not been able to speak anonymously and in a personal capacity, or they would have had to stick to the official position of their government or organization, which is something that could otherwise be found in official documents.

Table A2.1    List of actors of which representatives were interviewed*

States

IGOs

Other non-State actors

PNG

Costa Rica

Norway

US

Brazil

Bolivia

Mexico

Philippines

Paraguay

Germany

Tuvalu

Spain

Chile

Netherlands

Sweden

Austria

Finland

Switzerland

Ethiopia

World Bank

FAO

UN-REDD

CIFOR

UNEP

UNFF

CBD Secretariat

ITTO

NGOs

IPOs

Women’s organizations

Business organizations

Community-based organizations

Research organizations

Note: * Please note that no further details can be given without compromising the guarantee of respondent anonymity.