Equity workshop: Equity and REDD+ in the media

THINKING beyond the canopy

Equity and REDD+ in the media: A comparative policy discourse analysis

Monica Di Gregorio, Maria Brockhaus, Tim Cronin , Efrian Muharrom, Levania Santoso, Sofi Mardiah and Mirjam Büdenbender

26-27 April 2015, International Institute for

Environment and Development


Why focus on equity, REDD+ and the media?

§  National REDD+ strategies under development and implementation à distributional impacts

§  Different actors have different understandings of what is equitable à different REDD+ outcomes

§  Public policy debates reported in the media à shape public opinion and perceived policy choices

§  Media translate, filter and contribute to drive public policy discourse and policy actors use the media to disseminate their ideas and signal their position to opponents


Research Questions:

1.  How do distinct policy actors frame equity issues and justifications for action in REDD+ policy debates in the national media?

2.  How does dominant framing on equity enable or hinder policy action to tackle the distributional, procedural equity and the root causes of inequality associated with REDD+ policy development and implementation?


UNFCCC Safeguards - Cancun Agreement Decision 1/CP Appendix 1

§  Respect of sovereignty §  Respect for knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples

and members of local communities §  The full and effective participation of relevant

stakeholders (indigenous peoples and local communities) §  Actions should also enhance other social benefits

à Equity issues to analyse in the media: Tenure & indigenous rights / Livelihoods impacts / Participation / Sovereignty / Benefit-sharing / Gender


Justifications for equity: Social justice principles

Distributive equity (outcomes): §  Needs-based: redistribution according to needs §  Rights-based: redistribution according to rights/entitlements §  Merit-based (stewardship): redistribution according to merit

Procedural equity (processes): §  Interest-based: inclusion in decision making based on being affected

by (and affecting) specific decisions §  Rights-based: inclusion in decision making based on rights/

entitlements §  Merit-based: inclusion in decision making based on the ability to

deliver specific outcomes

Contextual equity (root causes of inequality): political and socio-economic factors that determine inequality (McDermott et al. 2012)


Media analysis

§  4 countries: Indonesia, Brazil (high media coverage); Vietnam and Peru (low coverage)

§  3 major newspapers from 2005 to 2010: articles with substantive focus on REDD

§  Analysis of policy actors’ opinion statements – stances – in the media (quotes or paraphrases of individually identified policy actors)

§  Coding of equity issues and of the type of social justice justifications for equity statements: •  Where the type of social justice justification was unclear or not

specified we used the refer the justification as ‘fairness’


Actor stances and equity issues Indonesia Brazil Vietnam Peru Total no of actor stances 386 176 31 20 Stances on equity 124 55 19 5

% equity stances 32 % 32 % 61 % 25 %

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

benefit-‐sharing livelihoods tenure &ind. rights

par@cipa@on sovereignty gender

Indonesia Brazil Vietnam Peru


national state actors sub-national state actors civil societyinternational NGOs business nat.research instituteinternational research institute intergovernmental organisation

Who discusses equity issues?


Actors and scale of equity concerns

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

natio

nal s

tate

acto

rs

civi

l soc

iety

inte

rnat

iona

lN

GO

s

natio

nal s

tate

acto

rs

civi

l soc

iety

inte

rgov

ernm

enta

lor

gs

natio

nal s

tate

acto

rs

inte

rgov

erna

tiona

lor

gani

satio

ns

stat

e-ow

ned

ente

rpris

e

civi

l soc

iety

inte

rnat

iona

lN

GO

s

Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Brazil Brazil Brazil Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Peru Peru

global domestic (national & local)


Actors and scale of equity concerns

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

natio

nal s

tate

acto

rs

civi

l soc

iety

inte

rnat

iona

lN

GO

s

natio

nal s

tate

acto

rs

civi

l soc

iety

inte

rgov

ernm

enta

lor

gs

natio

nal s

tate

acto

rs

inte

rgov

erna

tiona

lor

gani

satio

ns

stat

e-ow

ned

ente

rpris

e

civi

l soc

iety

inte

rnat

iona

lN

GO

s

Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Brazil Brazil Brazil Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Peru Peru

global domestic (national & local)


How do actors justify concerns about equity?

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

State (nat.)

State (sub

-‐nat.)

Civil society (d

om.)

Civil society (int.)

State (nat.)

State (sub

-‐nat.)

Civil society (d

om.)


IGOs

State (nat.)

Busin

ess

IGOs

Civil society (d

om.)


Indonesia Brazil Vietnam Peru

Fairness Rights Need Interest Stewardship


Summary §  Political elites engaged in national REDD+ policy

processes need to engage more with domestic equity issues (& civil society) - Brazil, Indonesia & Peru

§  State’s ‘equity agenda’ mainly benefit-sharing, civil society key to push agenda on: livelihood impacts, tenure/ind. rights and participation

§  Concerns with distributive equity > procedural equity > contextual equity à more affirmative than transformative action

§  Domestic civil society has a more transformative equity agenda than the state


www.cifor.cgiar.org

Di Gregorio, M., Brockhaus, M., Cronin, T., Muharrom, E., Santoso, L., Mardiah, S. and Büdenbender, M. 2013. Equity and REDD+ in the media: A comparative analysis of policy discourses. Ecology and Society [Online], 18. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05694-180239. We would like to thank the case study country teams that have contributed data and expertise, in particular Peter May, Daju Resosudarmo, Moira Moeliono, Thuy Thu Pham and Mary Menton. Thanks for Jeffrey Broadbent, Clare Saunders and Stephan Price for the contribution on methods. Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, the Australian Agency for International Development, the UK Department for International Development, the European Commission, and the US Agency for International Development.