1.
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

2.
THINKING beyond the canopy
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

3.
THINKING beyond the canopy
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?

4.
THINKING beyond the canopy
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

5.
THINKING beyond the canopy
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)

6.
THINKING beyond the canopy
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’

7.
THINKING beyond the canopy
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

8.
THINKING beyond the canopy
national state actors sub-national state actors civil society
international NGOs business nat.research institute
international research institute intergovernmental organisation
Who discusses equity issues?

9.
THINKING beyond the canopy
Actors and scale of equity concerns
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
nationalstate
actors
civilsociety
international
NGOs
nationalstate
actors
civilsociety
intergovernmental
orgs
nationalstate
actors
intergovernational
organisations
state-owned
enterprise
civilsociety
international
NGOs
Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Brazil Brazil Brazil Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Peru Peru
global domestic (national & local)

10.
THINKING beyond the canopy
Actors and scale of equity concerns
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
nationalstate
actors
civilsociety
international
NGOs
nationalstate
actors
civilsociety
intergovernmental
orgs
nationalstate
actors
intergovernational
organisations
state-owned
enterprise
civilsociety
international
NGOs
Indonesia Indonesia Indonesia Brazil Brazil Brazil Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Peru Peru
global domestic (national & local)

11.
THINKING beyond the canopy
How do actors justify concerns
about equity?
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
State
(nat.)
State
(sub-­‐nat.)
Civil
society
(dom.)
Civil
society
(int.)
State
(nat.)
State
(sub-­‐nat.)
Civil
society
(dom.)
Civil
society
(int.)
IGOs
State
(nat.)
Business
IGOs
Civil
society
(dom.)
Civil
society
(int.)
Indonesia
Brazil
Vietnam
Peru
Fairness
Rights
Need
Interest
Stewardship

12.
THINKING beyond the canopy
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

13.
THINKING beyond the canopy
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.