From REDD+ forests to green landscapes? Analyzing the emerging integrated landscape approach discourse in the UNFCCC

Forest Policy and Economics 73 (2016) 177–184

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forest Policy and Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol

From REDD+ forests to green landscapes? Analyzing the emerging integrated landscape approach discourse in the UNFCCC☆ Tobias Dan Nielsen Department of Political Science, P.O. Box 52, Lund University, Sweden

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 8 January 2016 Received in revised form 12 September 2016 Accepted 13 September 2016 Available online 24 September 2016 Keywords: Integrated landscape approach REDD+ UNFCCC Climate change Discourse analysis

a b s t r a c t This paper explores an emerging discourse at the UNFCCC level - the integrated landscape approach discourse, which brings new understandings of how to approach forests in a climate change nexus. Its proponents argue that forestry, agriculture and other land uses cannot be seen in isolation, but need to be integrated into a single management process. I apply argumentative discourse analysis (Hajer, 1995) to a series of documents, statements, observations and interviews to identify and analyze the power of this discourse in the UNFCCC and in particular on the reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) negotiations. The paper highlights the central arguments of its storylines, its main critique and identifies members of its discourse coalition. It also assesses its discursive power, and concludes that although storylines of the integrated landscape approach discourse may be well recognized in the UNFCCC, in particular at side-events (discourse structuration), it has yet to impose its logics and rationales in a profound way (discourse institutionalization). © 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V.

1. Introduction The global governance of forests is a dynamic field that has experienced significant changes over time (cf. McDermott, 2014; Nielsen, 2015). The most recent shift has seen the governance of tropical forests, in particular, become deeply intertwined with international climate politics (Humphreys, 2008; Buizer et al., 2014). The large-scale tropical deforestation and forest degradation of previous decades have led to 10–15% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and hampered forests from sequestrating significant amounts of atmospheric carbon (IPCC, 2014). In 2005, parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreed to a proposal, which led to the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) framework.1 Unlike previous forest conservation initiatives, the basic logic behind REDD+ is to use economic incentives to conserve forests by creating a financial value for the ecosystem services that forests perform through sequestrating and storing carbon from the atmosphere (Corbera and Schroeder, 2011). In its relatively short history, REDD+ has grown to become a focal point of the UNFCCC negotiations and has arguably changed much of the way tropical forests are being governed around the globe (Arts et al., 2010; Angelsen et al., 2012).

☆ It's all connected… (2015 Global Landscape Forum). E-mail address: [email protected]. 1 The initial proposal was target deforestations. Forest degradation, which is the second “D” and the “+,” which refer to conserving and enhancing forest carbon stocks and sustainably managing forests, came into the negotiation later.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.09.006 1389-9341/© 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V.

As illustrated in Fig. 1, REDD+ itself has changed considerably, expanding its scope and shifting its focus over time (Pistorius, 2012; den Besten et al., 2014; Buizer et al., 2014). In recent years, ideas around what has been labeled the “integrated landscape approach” (Florence et al., 2013; Sayer et al., 2013) have gained momentum in the UNFCCC, attracting high-powered interest (author observations 2013–2015). This has the potential to produce another significant shift in REDD+ and thus on the governance of tropical forest at the UNFCCC. This paper provides an analysis of the integrated landscape approach and its influence on REDD+ at the UNFCCC. Proponents of the integrated landscape approach argue that sectorial approaches to land management are no longer sufficient to meet global challenges such as tropical deforestation, biodiversity conservation or food production. Instead, they argue that we needed to look at these challenges in an integrated and holistic way, incorporating different land uses into a single management process (cf. Sunderland, 2014; Chavez-Tafur and Roderick, 2014). The integrated landscape approach would focus not only on forests, but emphasize a wider landscape-scale, integrating multiple land-uses to achieve sustainable outcomes. Changes the integrated landscape approach would entail: a) break down boundaries between forests and the wider landscape; b) elevating the role of agriculture, which until now has only played a marginal role in REDD+ and indeed the UNFCCC (Kalfagianni and Duyck, 2015); c) place a greater emphasis on looking at a wider set of environmental services than the sequestration and storing of carbon in forests (e.g. non-carbon benefits); and d) place a more bottom-up, stakeholder centric approach to land-use management (cf. Reed et al., 2015). Although, these

178

T.D. Nielsen / Forest Policy and Economics 73 (2016) 177–184

Fig. 1. (Tropical) forests in the UNFCCC - from “no forests” to “REDD+” towards a landscape approach.

arguments have been raised before in REDD+ negotiations, critics argue that REDD+ is still very much a top-down, forest-centered and, carbon-centered mechanism (Buizer et al., 2014; McDermott, 2014; Nielsen, 2014). Proponents argue that the integrated landscape approach represents a new direction to current policies on forestry and climate change: The mission to put forests on the climate change agenda is arguably completed. The mission to deliver sustainable, climate-smart and equitable growth in the green sectors has barely started. To succeed, we need holistic approaches and we need to tear down sector boundaries that obscure our view and limit the set of solutions. [(Peter Holmgren, Director CIFOR, 2012)] In this paper, I analyze the influence of the integrated landscape approach, not by examining the technical components or evaluating its proposed policies, but by analyzing the underlying ideas, perceptions, and rhetoric of the integrated landscape approach. I conceive of the integrated landscape approach as an emerging discourse with the potential ability to shift the REDD+ debates and practices at the UNFCCC. Discourse refers to the ensembles of multiple understandings, framings and contexts that lead to the social construction of environmental problems and solutions by different actors (Hajer, 1993). The aim of this paper is, on the basis of documents, statements, observations and interviews to: − identify the key arguments (storylines) of the integrated landscape approach discourse, and its main critique; − explore the influence of the discourse in the UNFCCC context, by analyzing its discursive power.

The following section identifies my main analytical approach – an argumentative discourse analysis. I then identify the main storylines of the integrated landscape approach discourse, its main critique, and the key actors (a discourse coalition) adhering to- or promoting these storylines at the UNFCCC. I then analyze the power of the integrated landscape approach discourse at the UNFCCC by looking at its ability to structure the debates (discursive structuration) and change practices (institutionalization). I end the paper with presenting the main conclusions and discussing wider implications of the analysis. 2. Argumentative discourse analysis Discursive approaches to environmental and forest policy analysis (cf. Dryzek, 2013; Feindt and Oels, 2005: Hajer, 1995; Arts

and Buizer, 2009) draw attention to policy processes as contests between forms of discourse, i.e. “the language and practices through which meaning is given to physical and social realities”, including policy problems and their potential solutions (Hajer, 1995, 44). Through this lens, the policy process can be conceived as a “struggle” over meanings, in which actors attempt to secure support for their definitions of “reality” and gain credibility and acceptability of their ideas, notions, etc. while disregarding others. New discourses, or conflicts between existing discourses, can stimulate policy change through the reordering of meaning, thereby enabling new definitions of the problem at hand and its concomitant solutions (Hansen et al., 2008). In this way, the change that the integrated landscape approach discourse brings can be seen in bringing new meanings to how the problems and consequently the solutions of deforestation and forest degradation are understood. Argumentative discourse analysis is part of the “argumentative turn” in policy analysis (cf. Fischer and Forester, 1993; Hajer and Versteeg, 2005). This refers to the increasing number of researchers who take the roles of ideas and discourse in political processes just as seriously as, e.g. the roles of interests and institutions (Arts et al., 2010, 57). Argumentative discourse analysis brings forward the fundamental argument that history and humans are “driven” by knowledge production and by collective interpretations of the world (Fischer, 2003). Part of the aim is to unravel argumentative structures and detect linguistic regularities in the documents, statements and practices through which these utterances are made (Hajer, 2006). The analytical approach in this paper draws in particular on Hajer's (1993, 1995, 2006) middle-range analytical concepts: discourse storyline, discourse-coalition, discourse structuration and institutionalization. A key limitation is that there is no precise guideline for how to operationalize them. For this I have looked for guidance in the existing literature operationalizing these concepts (cf. Bulkeley, 2000; Szarka, 2004; Mander, 2008; Lovell et al., 2009; Jessup, 2010; Cotton et al., 2014; Vijge, 2015). Discursive storylines are narratives that allow actors to navigate complexity and make sense of policy problems (Hajer, 1995). The underlining assumption is that actors do not draw on comprehensive discursive systems for their cognition, instead evoking these through storylines (Hajer, 2006). Mapping storylines therefore provides a useful tool to tease out the underlying perceptions, shared terms and concepts that actors use to give meaning to the integrated landscape approach discourse. Storylines “do not just represent given phenomena, but actively construct these phenomena by changing the way in which actors see and govern them.” (Vijge, 2015, 40).

T.D. Nielsen / Forest Policy and Economics 73 (2016) 177–184

Discourse-coalition refers to a “group of actors using and promoting a set of storylines over a particular period of time and in the context of an identifiable set of practices.” (Hajer, 2006, 70). Discourse-coalitions consist of actors who do not necessarily have the same values or interest, but who perceive and understand the issues on, e.g. climate change, or how to reduce deforestation in similar ways. They are not necessarily very coordinated in their actions. Hajer (1993, 48) describes them as in some cases consisting of “odd bedfellows” with little or no communication amongst its members. Discourse structuration and discourse institutionalization are used to examine the power of a discourse (Hajer, 1993, 1995). Discourse structuration occurs when storylines and the agents of a discourse coalition achieve coherence and credibility, and when other key policy actors feel obliged to use these storylines in order to appear credible. Discourse institutionalization is harder to achieve, and occurs when the storylines articulated by a discourse-coalition come to be acted on within the policy process, e.g. as a policy document or organizational practice (Lovell et al., 2009). 3. Material and methods 3.1. Material The methods and empirical data collection followed a similar structure to other argumentative discourse analysis of environmental policymaking. The analysis uses, in particular, the following for guidance: Hajer, 1995; Bulkeley, 2000; Bäckstrand and Lövbrand, 2006; Cotton et al., 2014; Rantala and Di Gregorio, 2014; Vijge, 2015). The empirical material collected included: Official UNFCCC negotiation documents were used, including submissions from parties and observer groups, as well as final negotiation texts and drafts written by the UNFCCC Secretariat during the negotiation process. I have included official REDD+ negotiation texts (cf. REDD+ decision booklet), and negotiations around the Advance Durban Platform in particular on Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). I have also included 15 submissions and statements that refer to landscape approach including from NGOs (WWF), delegates (Indonesia), research institutes (Center for International Forestry Research - CIFOR), and multinational organizations (World Bank). Here I have looked at how they define the landscape approach and which aspects they highlight. Participant observation at three Conference for Parties (COPs): COP19; COP20, and COP21, and three inter-sessional meetings on the Advanced Durban Platform (e.g. ADP 2-7, 2-8, and 2-9). Given the restrictive nature of many REDD+ negotiations, I focused on events outside the meeting rooms, including the 2013 “high-level panel on forests and land use”, the launch the BioCarbon fund, and several UNFCCC side-events and side-event in connection to the UNFCCC conferences (i.e. Forest Day and Global Landscape Forum). In total 19 semi-structured interviews were also conducted, with a variety of key proponents and critics of in the integrated landscape approach discourse. This included: five REDD+ negotiators from donor and recipient countries, four forest experts from global research institutes, four seasoned consultants working in the forestry sector, three lead policy experts from international environmental NGOs and three representatives from the private sector (see Annex 1 for more details). In addition, I had several consultations with other negotiators, practitioners, forest experts, representatives from key REDD+ funding organizations, scholars working with REDD+ and representatives from civil society that helped inform my analysis. The range of interviewees encompassed Hajer's (2005) notion of capturing “helicopter” perspectives across the policy domain (specialists with a broad overview of the issue), alongside others with specific interests in various policy outcomes (see also Cotton et al.,

179

2014). The selection was also based on ex-ante assumptions of capturing different viewpoints.2 A significant part of the data came from secondary material including document analysis of: a) academic literature analyzing the “integrated landscape approach” and other similar approaches (e.g. Reducing Emissions from All Land Uses (REALU), Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) and climate-smart agriculture), b) press releases, c) reports (including from the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Ecoagriculture, International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO), Global Agriculture Research Partnership (CGAIR) and the World Bank), and d) blogs (including CIFOR, the Ecosystem Marketplace, the World Bank and REDD monitoring). Statements through blogs were used as important “sites of argumentation” (Cotton et al., 2014) and helpful to gather viewpoints from actors in which interviews were not available. 3.2. Methods Distilling storylines is an interpretative and iterative process. Storylines appear in statements as recurring rhetoric, arguments, perspectives, etc., hence indicating a certain understanding of an issue area (problem) or rationalizing a specific policy action (solution) (Wagenaar, 2011). Based on the literature mentioned above and on my own elaboration regarding this guidance, I have developed the following sequence of steps: a) Composing an ex-ante idea of what the key storylines might be, based on preliminary research derived from the literature review, early interviews, or observation. b) Testing these first drafts of the storylines regarding different types of material (see above) to see if they represent key arguments adhered to by different actors, or if these are evident in other types of material. c) Refining the storylines, either by modifying the ones developed in the first two steps, or by adding/subtracting storylines to better reflect what I have observed. d) Repeating these steps for a number of rounds with the data collection (i.e. text analysis or interviews), and being less exploratory as well as more focused. For example, the second round of interviews would seek to fill gaps from the first round, checking if the interviewees agree with the storylines, and where they would place themselves.

To identify “discourse coalitions” I examine how actors from different organizational backgrounds employ the storylines to describe the facets of an integrated landscape approach discourse from the same conceptual domain. Here I have relied on interviews, reports, and secondary literature in particular. To assess the power of the integrated landscape approach discourse, e.g. the discursive structuration and institutionalization (see above) I have: a) examined how recognized it is amongst practitioners that take part in the UNFCCC, both as negotiators and observers. I have relied on interviews, UNFCCC submissions and observations from side events and study whether the integrated landscape has gained legitimacy amongst actors and if it is a term that actors resort to conceptualize for example the problems of deforestation. b) To assess the institutionalization of the integrated landscape discourse I have analyzed each of the storylines to see if they are found in the official negotiation (mainly REDD+ and Advanced Durban Platform (ADP)) texts and asked actors whether they see it as being present in the negotiations. In regards to these two analytical concepts there is very little guidance in the literature on how to operationalize it (cf. Hajer, 1993, 2006). 2 All interviews were asked about their views and understandings of the integrated landscape approach, as well as whether, if so how, it has influenced the REDD+ and UNFCCC process.

180

T.D. Nielsen / Forest Policy and Economics 73 (2016) 177–184

Fig. 2. Integrated landscape approach discursive storylines.

4. Analyzing the integrated landscape approach discourse

and integrate the information they require to interpret activities, progress, and threats. (Sayer et al. 2013, 8352)

4.1. Storylines The storylines of the integrated landscape approach discourse focuses on the needs and possibilities of a holistic approach; as such, I have broken it down into three dimensions: a) the problem (agenda setting) of confining landscapes into silos; b) the type of solutions (policy tools) to overcome this; and c) the visions or the improved outcomes that an integrated landscape approach discourse can help facilitate. Fig. 2 provides an overview of the storylines and their key arguments. 4.1.1. Problem The main problem that the landscape approach points out is that the heterogeneity of landscapes has not yet been fully accounted for in the primarily sector-based approaches to conservation. Consequently, deforestation, at least in the case of REDD+, should not be seen as “just” a forestry issue. Landscapes represent complex systems with sets of social, biophysical, human ecological and economic dimensions that interact with each other (Frost et al., 2006). Indeed, a fundamental shortcoming of existing conservation approaches is that they confine landscapes into different silos, which are defined through history by economic activity, professional communities, geographic boundaries and government structures. In particular, an often-used example to illustrate this “problem” at the GLF is the relationship between global deforestation and its main driver - agriculture (GLF, 2013, 2014, 2015; Rautner et al., 2013). Agricultural products (food, feed and fuel)3 have been responsible for some 80% of deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (Hosonuma et al., 2012), and the demand for these products are likely to substantially increase in the future (Kissinger et al., 2012). The integrated landscape approach discourse presents forests as part of a larger and fluid (eco)system in which the multiple interactions and feedback have to be considered, but also the different stakeholders and their values and views on the multiple functions of landscapes. Proponents of the integrated landscape approach discourse argue for being aware of the multiple scales and multi-functionality that exist in landscapes, which are valued in different ways by different stakeholders (Sayer et al., 2013). 4.1.2. Solutions (tools) The solution to confining landscapes into silos is to promote integrated and holistic approaches to managing landscapes. There is no one way to implement an “integrated landscape approach”, but one key premise in the UNFCCC debates is to facilitate a common understanding of the issues and a common entry point amongst stakeholders and communities (see also Frost et al., 2006; Chavez-Tafur and Roderick, 2014): In a landscape approach, no single stakeholder has a unique claim to relevant information, and the validity of different knowledge systems must be recognized. All stakeholders should be able to generate, gather,

Hence, it is a multifunctional, but also a multi-actor landscape, so therefore one needs to engage different types of actors who have different productive strategies, cultural and migration histories, access to capital, technology and markets, and who frame and express objectives in different ways. Integrating different stakeholders and achieving some form of consensus between all the stakeholders is seen as essential (Colfer et al., 2011; Luttrell et al., 2014; Scherr et al., 2012). Indeed fostering a sense of social cohesion or sense of community is seen to increase collaboration between stakeholders, learning and ingenuity to solve problems and undertake collective action (Chavez-Tafur and Roderick, 2014). Placing an emphasis on multiple stakeholder concerns and objectives necessitates the consideration of multiple objectives, rather than a predetermined carbon-focus REDD+ (Bernard et al., 2013). In this way, the landscape approach takes on a more reflexive approach towards its objectives, and requires a continual adjustment of objectives in response to new knowledge (Sayer et al., 2013).4 Thus, the integrated landscape approach discourse enables a move towards a process-driven management approach, rather than one aimed at achieving clear-cut static objectives. This shift mirrors the demand for more inclusion and local stakeholder involvement to more broadly collaboratively forge balanced, comprehensive solutions in both the REDD+ debates and in global environmental governance (cf. John, 1994; McDermott et al., 2011; Boer, 2013).

4.1.3. Visions By viewing the landscape in a more integrated and holistic way, and by promoting integrated management strategies, such as multi-stakeholder inclusion, the integrated landscape approach discourse is argued to allow for actors to better navigate the synergies and trade-offs involved with attaining multiple objectives (GLF, 2013, 2014, 2015). Proponents argue that future research needs to be geared to understanding the trade-offs better, to quantifying them and to looking at particular policy incentives that would be given to the various stockholders involved (Campbell, 2009). The integrated landscape approach discourse offers its own triple wins.5 In addition, to mitigation, a core part of the integrated landscape approach is to include adaptation and (sustainable) development – “MAD” (mitigation, adaptation and development).6 Mitigation is still a cornerstone in the landscape approach, although adaptation and resilience are seen more on an equal footing than previously done (Schipper, 2006). In regard to (sustainable) development, the landscape approach promotes a broad framework that aims to fully integrate agriculture, the natural environment, different livelihood systems and social interactions towards a sustainable development agenda. This effectively makes the integrated landscape approach discourse almost all-inclusive. 4

Similar to the notion of adaptive management. Notions of win-win are often given when it comes to dealing with climate change (Stern, 2006). 6 Term derived from author's interview with Michael Bucki (EU Commission negotiator on REDD+), Warsaw, 2013. 5

3 Sometimes, proponents of the integrated landscape approach discourse uses the notion of food, feed, fuel and forests.

T.D. Nielsen / Forest Policy and Economics 73 (2016) 177–184

4.2. Critique In general, my research found a less cohesive set of critique. There were no strong opposition at side-events and often critics were found on a more individual level rather than organizations or groups. The main critique targets the increased complexity, abstractness and risks of undermining the progress of REDD+ negotiations that the integrated landscape approach brings. A key argument against the integrated landscape approach discourse is that it would be too complex and vague to implement. REDD+ is already fiercely complex to implement and an integrated landscape approach would only exacerbate this,7 in particular as it does not consist of specific practices and lacks clarity.8 For some negotiators, it also represents a risk of further complicating or perhaps setting back the progress made thus far on the REDD+ framework.9 Moreover, REDD+ has already undergone rapid changes, with many local stakeholders still not well informed of what REDD+ is, shifting to an “integrated landscape approach” will only add to the uncertainty.10 Others highlight the uniqueness of forests in relation to combatting climate change, criticizing that lumping together different land uses challenges the unique role of forests. Yet another concern is that an “integrated landscape approach” effectively links agriculture to mitigation, which raises concerns for developing countries dealing with food security issues, by potentially placing restrictions on food production (e.g. reduction of farm land or lower use of fertilization).11 From a more ideological point of view, integrated landscape approach discourse is criticized for promoting the same destructive practices that REDD+ does, only on a wider scale. In this light, the integrated landscape approach discourse represents a diffusion of data-driven technocratic and neoliberal governance from (tropical) forests onto entire landscapes, under the mantle of environmentally sustainable development (cf. Goldman, 2001; Death and Gabay, 2015). This view calls into questioned whether the integrated landscape approach is fundamentally changing the way (tropical) forests are dealt with in the UNFCCC, or whether it is more a case of projecting the ideas of incentive based conservation onto other land use arenas, thus expanding rather than changing REDD+: Ever in search of new opportunities for carbon trading, the players in carbon markets have greedily identified new ways of expanding REDD to include other ecosystems, as well as agriculture, soils, water bodies, and even marine vegetation such as sea-grass beds. Besides the atmosphere, carbon traders are now trying to commoditise our entire planet. (Walley Menne, Timberwatch Coalition 2015)

4.3. Discourse coalition

For its part, the World Bank Group is increasingly using landscape approaches to implement strategies that integrate management of land, water, and living resources, and that equitably promote sustainable use and conservation. (Kyte, 2012) Table 1 provides an illustration of key actors promoting the integrated landscape approach storylines (see next section for illustration of this).12 It does not disclose the full extent of the coalition, nor does it 7

Interview with forest expert, Warsaw, November 14, 2013. Observations from GLF 2013, GLF 2014 and high-level panel event on the land sector and forests, Warsaw November 18, 2013. 9 Interview with REDD+ donor country representative, Warsaw 2013 and interview with REDD+ country representative, Paris 2015. 10 Author interview with member of REDD+ implementation agency, Warsaw 2013. 11 Author interview with forest expert, Bonn 2015. 12 Key actors include actors that are influential in the debates on REDD+ either by being large donors, or recipients of REDD+ funding or providing. 8

181

Table 1 Actors in the integrated landscape approach discourse coalition. Type For

Name

Parties

Australia, Finland, Germany, Indonesia, Norway, UK, USA, and Peru. Multilateral World Bank's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility funding agencies (FCPF) and UN-REDD; Global Green Fund (GCF). International Center for International Forest Research (CIFOR), research institutes Global Research Partnership on Food Security (CGAIR), World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF). NGO's Conservation International, EcoAgri, Greenpeace International, WWF. Private sector Unilever, Danone, and the voluntary carbon standard (VCS) is already incorporating aspects of the integrated landscape approach. Against No explicit group of actors, mainly individual experts or practitioners, or critics of a market-based approach to conservation. Based on authors interviews, observations, and document analysis.

indicate the extent to which they support it in other contexts. It does illustrate the broad support it has received from multilateral funding agencies to international environmental, multinational companies, and key UNFCCC members in forest related negotiations. Based on interviews and observations, I would argue that research institutes and multilateral organizations in particular have been instrumental in promoting the integrated landscape approach discourse in the UNFCCC. In this way, it can be seen as being driven by an expert-led (epistemic) community, thus in a way “informing” or providing “evidence-based” advice (Petrokofsky et al., 2011) to the management policies they themselves have to implement (see also Kamelarczyk and Smith-Hall, 2014). The critique of the integrated landscape approach discourse is not as vocal or organized (in terms of making statements or organizing events at the COPs) as the discourse coalition promoting it. Nor is it as clear-cut in the case of which actors (organizations, countries, NGOs, etc.) are antagonistic to the integrated landscape approach discourse. One noticeable exception is the Coalition for Rainforest Nations who have argued that including the integrated landscape approach would dilute or stall the REDD+ negotiations.13 Reasons for the lack of critique include: that a more concrete counter-coalition may exists in arenas not covered by this study; that criticism will grow over time if the integrated landscape approach discourse gathers further momentum; or that the integrated landscape approach is sufficiently vague for a wide range of actors to rally behind it - similar arguments have been made for REDD+ (cf. McDermott et al., 2012). Consequently, the proponents of the integrated landscape approach discourse are not confined to a distinct network of actors that stand in opposition to a conflicting coalition arguing against it. This is indeed a key characteristic of the emergence of the integrated landscape approach, it is not led by actors responding to problems in a conflictual way, but rather in a consensual way (see also Lovell et al., 2009).

4.4. Discursive power of the integrated landscape approach discourse 4.4.1. Discourse structuration Unlike previous efforts (cf. REDD++ in Pistorius, 2012), the integrated landscape approach is on the political agenda and for some considered a natural evolution of existing policies. Chief adviser to ICRAF, Meine Van Noordwijk, states that: “In a way there is nothing revolutionarily new about it [landscape approach]. The reality is actually more integrated already than we recognize” (Noordwijk, 2013). This widespread support and notion that its main arguments are “common sense” or “taken for granted” is one of the key strengths of the integrated landscape approach, from a discursive point of view. The storylines of 13 Author interview with leading figure in the Coalition for Rainforest Nations, Paris 2015.

182

T.D. Nielsen / Forest Policy and Economics 73 (2016) 177–184

the integrated landscape approach discourse were seldom questioned in the interviews and other data collected for this paper. REDD+, as it stands, is limited in its vision on forests. For me, it’s obvious that a landscape approach that combines forests, agriculture and other land uses…is the way forward. [(Tony La Viña, former REDD+ Facilitator, Doha, 2012).] The following examples illustrate how the integrated landscape approach has gained credibility and legitimacy i.e. discourse structuration at the UNFCCC. During the 2013 COP19 “high-level panel on forests and land use” parties to the UNFCCC discussed the integration between forest and other land uses in the post-2015 climate regime. The issue received broad support from almost all parties (author observation). COP19 also saw the launch of the USD 360 million World Bank BioCarbon Fund, which is specifically earmarked for projects operationalizing an integrated landscape approach (COP19).14 Here ministers from Great Britain, Norway, Peru and the USA promoted the significance of a landscape approach. The integrated landscape approach storylines have also been promoted in selected submissions and joint statements. One prominent example is “stand with forests,” in which heads of government from major forest and REDD+ donor countries endorsed the integration of forests and land restoration as a key climate solution.15 Others include nonstate actors such as CIFOR and WWF that promote the landscape approach (CIFOR, 2014; WWF, 2014), as well as national climate plans (INDC) that include landscape-scale approaches and the integration of different land-uses (cf. AILAC and Mexico, 2014; Indonesia, 2014). UNFCCC side-events have been a place where the integrated landscape approach has been discussed frequently in recent years. With one interviewee stating, “you can’t almost hear REDD+ anymore, now it’s landscape.”16 Side-events provide a place to facilitate informal exchange between stakeholders on the integrated landscape approach, provide inputs for the negotiations, and allow issues that cannot be addressed in the negotiations to be discussed (Schroeder and Lovell, 2012). In addition, the Global Landscape Forums (GLF) - a two day conference explicitly on the landscape approach held in proximity to the COPs - can be seen as instrumental in presenting the integrated landscape approach discourse as credible, common sense and realistic option (GLF, 2013, 2014, 2015). Both UNFCCC side-events and GLF provide examples of how the integrated landscape approach can be operationalized, including technical (e.g. monitoring practices) and financial aspects. Moreover, forest and agricultural experts, REDD+ negotiators, NGOs, CEOs of large corporations, and heads of states have all adhered to the integrated landscape approach storylines at various panels, granting it legitimacy (Hajer, 1995). Consequently, side-events and the GLF play a key role in strengthening the discursive structuration of the integrated landscape approach discourse at the UNFCCC. The ideas around an integrated landscape approach have been around for several years (cf. Campbell, 2009). Several interviewees point to a key reason it has gained traction now in the REDD+ discussions, can be connected to the question of finance. “There is relatively little REDD+ and conservation finance, but a ton of public agriculture finance and private investment” (private sector representative interview, COP21 December 2015). As such, including multiple objectives is a way to increase funding for the starved REDD+ financial situation, and a way to get the private sector more involved (cf. Kissinger et al., 2015).17 Others point out that this is a natural evolution of REDD+, and that

connecting forests with other land-uses has been a missing link in the negotiations. The GLF can be seen to exemplify the growing acknowledgement of a need to integrate different sectors. It itself was a merger between two annual conferences: Forest Day and Agriculture, Landscapes and Livelihoods (previously Agriculture and Rural Development Day) (IISD, 2013). Another explanation is that the landscape approach already exists outside of the UNFCCC negotiations, and the UNFCCC is just catching up. “Landscape approach is a concept, but actually this is what we always have been thinking, but slow to realize”.18 There is a sense that an integrated landscape approach better represents what is “already happening on the ground”, and is thus a way to feed the “realities on the ground” up into the international negotiations: The REDD+ shift [towards an integrated landscape approach] is perhaps more about a donor shift in awareness than receiver... They [REDD+ negotiators] need to acknowledge how things are done, look at how they are dealing with forest governance in their own countries and put that into the [negotiation] deals.19 4.4.2. Discourse institutionalization Although the integrated landscape approach has gained a degree of discursive structuration, it is not part of the Warsaw Framework on REDD+20 (cf. Decision booklet REDD+), nor does it appear in the 2015 Paris Agreement (FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1). However, zooming in we see that the integrated landscape approach storylines are not completely absent from the UNFCCC. Analyzing the three storylines that outline the problem, solutions, and visions of the integrated landscape approach I find that some of its key notions are already present: 4.4.2.1. Problem. The Warsaw Framework on REDD+ “encourages” actors to take drivers of deforestation and forest degradation into consideration (Decisions 9/CP.19). This leaves the door open for agriculture (as the largest) driver to be included in the REDD+ debates and negotiations, and the notion of multifunctional landscapes, which is a key premise of the problem storyline of the integrated landscape approach. Similarly, the submission of country climate plans (Intended National Determined Contributions - INDC), which is a key part of the Paris Agreement, can include various land-use activities (decision 1/CP.20). Indeed, the issue of integrating different land uses is already a part of other negotiation forum including negotiations on (LULUCF) and negotiations on a registry to record nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) (Iversen et al., 2014). The integrated landscape approach storylines are also present in the Green Climate Fund (GCF) negotiations. The GCF recently opened up for including results-based payments for REDD+ projects as part of their overall mitigation objectives. In doing so it stated that such payments are not exclusive to REDD+, but can be used for other types of land use activities.21 Thus, inviting REDD+ projects to include other land use activities and get finance for them. 4.4.2.2. Solution. There is little mention of the notion of holistic approach to landscape management in the texts studied. On the other hand, the notions of multi-stakeholders, multiple objectives, and a more bottom-up approach to environmental governance are already central debates at the UNFCCC and in REDD+ (cf. van Asselt et al., 2014; Carodenuto and Cerruti, 2014; McDermott, 2014; Tegegne et al., 2014; see also Table 1). Both the concepts of “non-carbon benefits” and “social safeguards” address these issues in relation to REDD+. Hence, these issues fall in line with some critical voices in the REDD+ debate, which have shaped REDD+ policies in the past (Visseren-Hamakers et al. 2012; den Besten et al., 2014). In this light, the integrated landscape

14

http://www.biocarbonfund-isfl.org. www.standwithforests.org. Author interview with private sector actor, Warsaw 2013. 17 The report concludes that the private sector is increasingly investing in integrated landscape approaches as a means to mitigate risks and address opportunities beyond the production unit. 15 16

18 19 20 21

Author interview with former Head of the UN-REDD Secretariat, Paris 2015. Author interview with seasoned forest consultant, Geneva, ADP 2–8, February 2015. A technical “rulebook” for how to operationalize REDD+, concluded in June 2015. GCF/B.08/08/Rev.01.

T.D. Nielsen / Forest Policy and Economics 73 (2016) 177–184

approach can be seen as part of broader efforts to place these issues at the heart of the global governance of (tropical) forests (McDermott et al., 2012). By hooking onto existing debates, the solution storyline of the integrated landscape approach discourse is present in negotiation texts and policies on REDD+. Although, proponents of the integrate landscape approach would want to place even more emphasize on these aspects (cf. Sunderland, 2014). 4.4.2.3. Vision. Acknowledging trade-offs between different objectives, does not feature promptly in the UNFCCC negotiation texts. Mitigation and adaptation have existed in separate pillars in the UNFCCC often with mitigation overshadowing adaptation. However, the role of adaptation within climate change action and the interlinkage with mitigation has progressively been acknowledged in the UNFCCC (Schipper, 2006). The notion of linking mitigation and adaptation with respect to forestry has also been a long-standing debate in REDD+ (cf. Somorin et al., 2012). Bolivia, for example, has promoted a formal recognition of the “dual role” of forests in adaptation and mitigation in implementing REDD+.22 From this, we can see that certain ideas and notions of the integrated landscape approach storylines are present in different negotiations forums. However, based on my interviews, observations, and document analysis, the integrated landscape approach discourse has not to a large degree been institutionalized into the UNFCCC negotiations. Parts of the integrated landscape approach storylines are present in the negotiation texts e.g. non-carbon benefits, social safeguards, and the possibility of integrating forests with other land uses. However, we have yet to see formal negotiations of how to operationalize an integrated landscape approach in the UNFCCC REDD+ context. Some of the key barriers to institutionalizing the integrated landscape approach discourse echo the criticism of it, namely that it is too complex, too vague, and may reopen in particular the REDD+ negotiations (see Section 4.2). Several interviewees responded that it is too broad and complex a topic to be included in the REDD+ negotiations leading up to the 2015 Paris deadline. “The priority for the REDD+ negotiations is to finish what they agree to discuss at COP15 [in 2009], before the 2015 deadline.”23 Negotiating agreements on how operationalize the integrated landscape approach seems particular challenging, not least finding a common framework for the monitoring, financing, and evaluation of such projects (Turnhout et al., 2016). However, some interviewees indicated that the REDD+ negotiations do not prevent local REDD+ projects from implementing an integrated landscape approach and that because of very local circumstances and the uniqueness of socio-ecological systems that make up landscapes, it will be difficult to get a global agreement. Consequently, for some the integrated landscape approach is best dealt with at the national and/or sub-national level. 5. Conclusion In this paper, I analyze the integrated landscape approach discourse, identifying three key storylines and central actors that promote them in the UNFCCC context. I also identify the main critique of it, but find that its critics are not as structured or organized as its proponents. Indeed the wide-spread support and notion that the integrated landscape approach's main arguments are “common sense” or “natural evolution of REDD+” is one of its key strengths from a discursive point of view. In terms of discursive power, the paper finds that although the integrated landscape approach has received a large degree of recognition and credibility, in particular amongst side-events and at the GLF (discourse structuration). This has, however, not lead to an institutionalization of the discourse into the negotiations texts at the UNFCCC (discourse institutionalization). 22 23

Submission JMA (joint mitigation and adaptation) Bolivia September 26, 2014. Author interview with representative of REDD+ donor countries, Warsaw 2013

183

If we zoom out beyond the UNFCCC process, the notion of integrating different sectors and promoting a more holistic approach have been echoed in other related intergovernmental negotiations, including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the recent Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Griggs et al., 2014; Death and Gabay, 2015). This perhaps indicates that the integrated landscape approach is feeding into a larger trend of integrating the many different aspects of climate change action, rather than the more sectorial approach at the UNFCCC. Likewise one could study what is happening on “the ground” in REDD+ projects. “At the negotiations the issues are dealt with in buckets (you have agriculture, forest, etc.) on the ground there are no buckets so you deal with what is there.”24 Perhaps beyond the UNFCCC COP's there is more room for the integrated landscape approach to be institutionalized. Looking ahead, the integrated landscape approach discourse may well continue to gain support and to further materialize, in particular outside of the UNFCCC negotiations (cf. Reed et al., 2015; DeShazo et al., 2016). However, as support grows, so may the critical voices, not least when it comes to finding a common (global) framework on implementation (cf. Turnhout et al., 2016). Lessons from REDD+ indicate that while REDD+ initially enjoyed broad support, the implementation of it has lead to significant controversy (cf. Corbera and Schroeder, 2011; Buizer et al., 2014). Consequently, during this “emerging stage”, the integrated landscape approach discourse may enjoy broad support due to it being sufficiently open to appeal to a wide range of interpretations (see also the conceptualization of REDD+ as a “boundary object” McDermott et al., 2012, 64). The advantage of this openness is that the integrated landscape approach discourse is able to gain legitimacy and support from a wide range of actors. The disadvantage is that this conceals underlying conflicts of interest or values that will be revealed as it takes on a more concrete shape. Hence, achieving discursive institutionalization may well perpetuate (or bring in new) controversies and criticism surrounding the integrated landscape approach discourse. Lastly, key concepts of the integrated landscape approach discourse have existed under different frameworks, such as “ecosystem approach” dating back to 1980s (see SIANI, 2015 for an overview). Future studies could analyze whether the integrated landscape approach discourse represents a new direction in forest governance or a return to old ways that were more predominant pre-REDD+. Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.09.006. Acknowledgements I am very grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive and valuable comments. I also owe a special thanks to Karin Bäckstrand, Johannes Stripple, and Fariborz Zelli for their helpful comments on previous versions of this paper. This research was funded by the strategic research area Biodiversity and Ecosystems in a Changing Climate, BECC, Lund University. References AILAC and Mexico, 2014. Adaptation in the ADP. Available at http://www4.unfccc.int/ submissions/Lists/OSPSubmissionUpload/39_99_13058131184084985 6-Adaptation% 20Submission%20AILAC-Mexico%20vf.pdf. Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Sunderlin, W.D., Verchot, L.V., 2012. Analysing REDD+: Challenges and Choices. Centre for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia. Arts, B., Buizer, M., 2009. Forests, discourses, institutions: a discursive­institutional analysis of global forest governance. Forest Policy Econ. 11, 340–347. Arts, B., Appelstrand, M., Kleinschmit, D., Pülzl, H., Visseren-Hamakers, I., Eba'a Atyi, R., Enters, T., McGinley, K., Yasmi, Y., 2010. Discourses, actors and instruments in international forest governance. In: Rayner, J., Buck, A., Katila, P. (Eds.), Embracing Complexity: Meeting the Challenges of International Forest Governance. A Global Assessment Report Prepared by the Global Forest Expert Panel on the International Forest Regime. International Union of Forest Research Organizations, Vienna, pp. 57–73. 24

Author interview with private sector actor, Warsaw 2013.

184

T.D. Nielsen / Forest Policy and Economics 73 (2016) 177–184

Bäckstrand, K., Lövbrand, E., 2006. Planting trees to mitigate climate change: contested discourses of ecological modernization, green governmentality and civic environmentalism. Glob. Environ. Pol. 6 (1), 50–75. Boer, H., 2013. Governing ecosystem carbon. Glob. Environ. Pol. 13 (4), 123–143. Buizer, M., Humphreys, D., de Jong, W., 2014. Climate change and deforestation: the evolution of an intersecting policy domain. Environ. Sci. Pol. 35, 1–11. Bulkeley, H., 2000. Discourse coalitions and the Australian climate change policy network. Environ. Plann. C Gov. Policy 18, 727–748. Campbell, B., 2009. Beyond Copenhagen: REDD+, agriculture, adaptation strategies and poverty (editorial). Glob. Environ. Chang. 19, 397–399. Carodenuto, S., Cerruti, P.O., 2014. Forest law enforcement, governance and trade (FLEGT) in Cameroon: perceived private sector benefits from VPA implementation. Forest Policy Econ. 48, 55–62. CIFOR, 2014. Ten principles for landscape approaches. Presentation and Statement. ADP Technical Expert Meetings: Land Use. 2014. Presented by Mr. Lou Verchot, Center for International Forestry Research Available at https://unfccc.int/files/bodies/awg/ application/pdf/s2_2_cifor_statement.pdf. Colfer, C.J.P., Andriamampandry, E., Asaha, S., Lyimo, E., Martini, E., Pfund, J.L., Watts, J., 2011. Participatory action research for catalyzing adaptive management: analysis of a ‘fits and starts’ process. J. Environ. Sci. Eng. 5, 28–43. Corbera, E., Schroeder, H., 2011. Governing and implementing REDD+. Environ. Sci. Pol. 14, 89–99. Death, C., Gabay, C., 2015. Doing biopolitics differently? Radical potential in the post2015 MDG and SDG debates. Globalizations 12 (4), 597–612. den Besten, J.W., Arts, B., Verkooijen, P., 2014. The evolution of REDD+: an analysis of discursive-institutional dynamics. Environ. Sci. Pol. 35, 40–48. DeShazo, J.L., Pandey, C.L., Smith, Z.A., 2016. Why REDD will Fail. Routledge, Abingdon. Dryzek, J.S., 2013. The Politics of the Earth, Environmental Discourses. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Feindt, P.H., Oels, A., 2005. Does discourse matter? Discourse analysis in environmental policy making. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 7 (3), 161–173. Fischer, F., 2003. Reframing Public Policy: Discourse Politics and Deliberative Practices. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Fischer, F., Forester, J., 1993. The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Duke University Press, London. Florence, B., Minang, P.A., van Noordwijk, M., Freeman, O.E., Duguma, L.A., 2013. Towards a Landscape Approach for Reducing Emissions: Substantive Report of Reducing Emissions from all Land Uses (REALU) Project. World Agroforestry Centre – ICRAF, Nairobi. Frost, P., Campbell, B., Medina, G., Usongo, L., 2006. Landscape-scale approaches for integrated natural resource management in tropical forest landscapes. Ecol. Soc. 11 (2), 30 [online]. Global Landscape Forum (GLF), 2014. Outcome statement. Available at http://www. landscapes.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2014-GLF-Outcome-Statement_web. pdf last accessed September 26, 2015. Global Landscape Forum (GLF), 2015. Outcome statement. Available at http://www. landscapes.org/wp-content/uploads/docs/GLF-Paris-Outcomes-Statement.pdf last accessed December 16, 2015. Global Landscapes Forum (GLF), 2013. Recommendations for UNFCCC and SDGs: full key messages. Available at http://www.landscapes.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ GLF-key-messages1.pdf last accessed September 26, 2015. Goldman, M., 2001. Constructing an environmental state: eco-governmentality and other transnational practices of a 'Green' World Bank. Soc. Probl. 48 (4), 499–523. Griggs, D., Stafford Smith, M., Rockström, J., Öhman, M.C., Gaffney, O., Glaser, G., Kanie, N., Noble, I., Steffen, W., Shyamsundar, P., 2014. An integrated framework for sustainable development goals. Ecol. Soc. 19 (4), 49. Hajer, M., 1993. Discourse coalitions and the industrialization of practice: the case of acid rain in Great Britain. In: Fischer, F., Forester, J. (Eds.), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Duke University Press, London, pp. 43–76. Hajer, M., 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Hajer, M., 2006. Doing discourse analysis: coalitions, practices, meaning. In: van den Brink, M., Metze, T. (Eds.), Words Matter in Policy and Planning: Discourse Theory and Method in the Social Sciences Vol. 344. Netherlands Geographical Studies, Utrecht. Hajer, M., Versteeg, M., 2005. A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: achievements, challenges, perspectives. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 7 (3), 175–184. Hansen, O.H., Langhelle, O., Anderson, R., 2008. Framework and methodology: Regulation and discourse analysis as a research strategy. In: Mikkelsen, A., Langhelle, O. (Eds.), Arctic Oil and Gas: Sustainability at Risk?Routledge, Abingdon. Humphreys, D., 2008. The politics of ‘avoided deforestation’: historical context and contemporary issues. Int. For. Rev. 10 (3), 433–442. IISD, 2013. Summary of the global landscapes forum. Glob. Landsc. Forum Bull. 148 (5), 1–15. IPCC, 2014. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group III Contribution to AR5. Iversen, P., Lee, D., Rocha, M., 2014. Understanding land use in the UNFCCC. Available at http://www.climateandlandusealliance.org/uploads/PDFs/Understanding_Land_ Use_in_the_UNFCCC.pdf last accessed February 26, 2015. Jessup, B., 2010. Plural and hybrid environmental values: a discourse analysis of the wind energy conflict in Australia and the United Kingdom. Environ. Pollut. 19 (1), 21–44.

Kalfagianni, A., Duyck, S., 2015. The evolving role of agriculture in climate change negotiations: Progress and players. CCAFS Info Note. CCAFS, Copenhagen. Kamelarczyk, K.B.F., Smith-Hall, C., 2014. REDD herring: epistemic community control of the production, circulation and application of deforestation knowledge in Zambia. Forest Policy Econ. 46, 19–29. Kissinger, G., Herold, M., De Sy, V., 2012. Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation: A Synthesis Report for REDD+ Policymakers. Lexeme Consulting, Vancouver Canada Available at http://www.somcon.com/sites/default/files/userfiles/1file/6316-driversdeforestation-report_0.pdf last accessed April 2, 2015. Kissinger, G., Moroge, M., Noponen, M., 2015. Private sector investment in landscape approaches: the role of production standards and certification. In: Minang, P.A., van Noordwijk, M., Freeman, O.E., Mbow, C., de Leeuw, J., Catacutan, D. (Eds.), ClimateSmart Landscapes: Multifunctionality in Practice. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya, pp. 277–293. Kyte, R., 2012. It's all connected: landscape approaches to sustainable development. World Bank Blog Available at http://blogs.worldbank.org/voices/its-all-connectedlandscape-approaches-to-sustainable-development last accessed April 2, 2015. Lovell, H., Bulkeley, H., Owens, S., 2009. Converging agendas? Energy and climate change policies in the UK. Environ. Plann. C Gov. Policy 27, 90–109. Mander, S., 2008. The role of discourse coalitions in planning for renewable energy: a case study of wind-energy deployment. Environ. Plann. C Gov. Policy 26, 583–600. McDermott, C.L., 2014. REDDuced: from sustainability to legality to units of carbon - the search for common interests in international forest governance. Environ. Sci. Pol. 35, 12–19. McDermott, C.L., Coad, L., Helfgott, A., Schroeder, H., 2012. Operationalizing social safeguards in REDD+: actors, interests and ideas. Environ. Sci. Pol. 21, 63–72. McDermott, C.L., Levin, K., Cashore, B., 2011. Building the forest-climate bandwagon: REDD+ and the logic of problem amelioration. Glob. Environ. Pol. 11 (3), 85–103. Menne, W., 2015. REDD perversions. Pambazuka news. Available at http://www. pambazuka.org/governance/redd-perversions (Last accessed April 4, 2015). Nielsen, T.D., 2014. The role of discourses in governing forests to combat climate change. Int. Environ. Agreements 14, 265–280. Nielsen, T.D., 2015. Forestry. In: Pattberg, P., Zelli, F. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Governance and Politics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Noordwijk, M.V., 2013. What is a landscape? ICRAF blog. Available at http://www. landscapes.org/dr-meine-van-noordwijk-landscape/ (last accessed April 1, 2015). Petrokofsky, G., Holmgren, P., Brown, N.D., 2011. Reliable forest carbon monitoring – systematic reviews as a tool for validating the knowledge base. Int. For. Rev. 13 (1), 56–66. Rautner, M., Leggett, M., Davis, F., 2013. The Little Book of Big Deforestation Drivers. Global Canopy Programme, Oxford. Reed, J., Deakin, L., Sunderland, T., 2015. What are ‘integrated landscape approaches’ and how effectively have they been implemented in the tropics: a systematic map protocol. Environ. Evid. 4 (2). Sayer, J., Sunderland, T.C.H., Ghazoul, J., Pfund, J.L., Sheil, D., Meijard, E., Venter, M., Boedhihartono, A.K., Day, M., García, C., Van Oosten, C., Buck, L.E., 2013. Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 110 (21), 8349–8356. Scherr, S.J., Shames, S., Friedman, R., 2012. From climate-smart agriculture to climatesmart landscapes. Agric. Food Secur. 1, 1–15. Schipper, E.L.F., 2006. Conceptual history of adaptation in the UNFCCC process. Rev. Eur. Commun. Int. Environ. Law 15 (1), 82–92. Schroeder, H., Lovell, H., 2012. The role of non-nation-state actors and side events in the international climate negotiations. Clim. Pol. 12 (1), 23–37. SIANI, 2015. Integrated landscape approaches: expectations and obstacles. Policy Brief August 2015. Available at http://www.sifi.se/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ Integrated-Landscape-Approaches_-web.pdf last accessed September 12, 2016. Somorin, O.A., Brown, A.C.P., Visseren-Hamakers, I.J., Sonwa, D.J., Arts, B., Nkem, J., 2012. The Congo Basin forests in a changing climate: policy discourses on adaptation and mitigation (REDD+). Glob. Environ. Chang. 22, 288–298. Sunderland, T., 2014. Whatever you call them, landscape approaches can help tackle crucial research issues. CGAIR blog. Available at http://dialogues.cgiar.org/blog/ landscape-approaches-can-help-tackle-crucial-research-issues/ last accessed April 2, 2015. Szarka, J., 2004. Wind power, discourse coalitions and climate change: breaking the stalemate. Eur. Environ. 14, 317–330. Tegegne, Y.T., Ochieng, R.M., Visseren-Hamakers, I.J., Lindner, M., Fobissie, K.B., 2014. Comparative analysis of the interactions between the FLEGT and REDD+ regimes in Cameroon and the republic of Congo. Int. For. Rev. 16 (6), 602–614. Turnhout, E., Gupta, A., Weatherley-Singh, J., Vijge, M.J., Koning, J.D., Visseren-Hamakers, I.J., Harold, M., Lederer, M., 2016. Envisioning REDD+ in a Post-Paris Era: Between Evolving Expectations and Current Practice. WIREs Climate Change Online publication. Vijge, M.J., 2015. Competing discourses on REDD+: global debates versus the first Indian REDD+ project. Forest Policy Econ. 56, 38–47. Wagenaar, H., 2011. Meaning in Action: Interpretation and Dialogue in Policy Analysis. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk and London. WWF, 2014. Addressing methodological issues of non-carbon benefits and non-marketbased approaches in REDD+. WWF's submission to the UNFCCC SBSTA 40, March 2014. Available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2014/smsn/ngo/411.pdf.