On Thursday, February 22, 2018, I spoke with Dr. Nuesiri, a scholar on REDD+ in Nigeria. I explained my project and he spoke about the brief history about REDD+. During the earlier environmental agreements, forestry and land management were not spoken of often. To stimulate this conversation, RED came into play. He mentioned specifically that Costa Rica had a big role in REDD+ because their representatives suggest increased measures for carbon sequestration and reduction which, in turn, would increase the need for financial support from developed nations. REDD+ is unique in that developing countries have a larger voice at the table because of financial benefits. Furthermore, countries such as Norway increase their environmental stewardship. They are able to contribute to greening industries in other countries rather than domestically where sustainable measures may have larger negative economic impacts. After REDD+ was completed, there was the question as to if “REDD is dead” due to the lack of timely follow through on REDD+ programming. Chris Lang pushes this idea forward that REDD is not helping the environmental sustainability agenda. Dr. Nuesiri suggested I examine Lang’s interviews and in contrast read Redeeming REDD+, written by Michael Brown. Should we rethink REDD+ or is it working the way it was meant to? Dr. Nuesiri also explained to me that this is the time to think critically about the issue of forest governance.
Month: February 2018
Mentor Meeting 2/14
On Wednesday, February 14, 2018, I met with Professor Nicholson, my faculty mentor. We discussed the various ways to go about the methodology discussion. To some degree, quantitative analysis may be necessary in choosing my cases or examples that I will highlight through my research. It will not drive my research, rather serve the purpose of selecting “cases.” There needs to also be a decision on tracing the domestic policy of one country or a general stance. After I conduct minor quantitative analysis, I may find it more necessary to have a small or large number of “cases” to examine. Professor Nicholson and I also discussed the context of REDD+. REDD+ at first was very exciting and since the agreement in 2011, there has been a concern as to its impacts and its future. REDD+ is monumental within the field of international land management, and therefore the conversation and analysis on REDD+ must continue. Professor Nicholson recommended the reading “Timber” by Peter Dauvergne and Jane Lister which specifically focuses on the economic value of timber resources.
Mentor Meeting 2/13
On Tuesday, February 13, 2018, I met with Professor Paul Wapner. We discussed how REDD+ is an example of “mission creep.” If REDD+ did not expand, the question arises of what could have been. Would RED have been enough? Would RED have higher concentrated successes? Professor Wapner was helpful in offering suggestions on how to exemplify this in my paper through a type of case selection. It may be valuable to consider which countries pledged to fund the program and if they did contribute. Then, the contributions compared to deforestation rate would shed light on to the successes and failures of this program.
Mentor Meeting 2/5
On Monday February 5, 2018 I met with Professor Marion Dixon. Professor Dixon recommended a colleague, Dr. Nuesiri, who has published a working paper on the representation in REDD+, specifically who are the actors, who is writing the policy, and who it is benefiting. Dr. Nuesiri’s research is focused in Nigeria. Professor Dixon has connected us so that we can speak more about his work. Professor Dixon challenged me to consider some of the same questions. She also suggested to look at similar policy that preceded REDD+. She urged me to consider who is at the table and who has a voice there. It is vital to understand the stakeholders and their motives.
Abstract Draft
This paper will examine a landmark land management policy enacted to use the global market to increase environmental sustainability. This study involves an inquiry into environmental discourses; specifically, I will use discourse analysis methodology to analyze implications of the expansion of policy missions. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) is a global initiative to reduce carbon emissions put forth by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Policy reviews display a notable shift in language surrounding the purpose of REDD+. During negotiations, the Conference of the Parties (COP) was influenced by developing countries to expand the mission and include “forest degradation” and other aspects surrounding forest governance. This project was influenced by the ideas of mismanagement of land, pricing the environment and global governance. I will examine elite and official discourses to trace related national environmental policy before and after the shifts in REDD+ language occurred which offer insight into this puzzle. Mission expansion enacted by developing countries have economic motives associated with them so benefits are maximized. Stakeholder motivations have a significant contribution to the failures of international environmental policy.
Mentor Meeting – Dr. Field 2/2
On Friday, February 2, 2018, Dr. Field and I met for an hour to discuss my biggest question; now where? We discussed how sometimes research makes you feel like you are not getting anywhere. 85% of the work that is put it never makes it to the actual research, rather it is to one’s own personal benefit to read and develop a background on the topic. It is part of the process to develop a deeper understanding of the origins of the discourse. Then this must be tracked through various policy. I will focus on how the discourse has policy implications and therefore I need to find where REDD+ has succeeded and failed to uphold its mission. This will allow me to reflect on the implications of REDD+. My focus question currently; is this phrase imported elsewhere and does it have direct policy implications? These mentor meetings are extremely valuable and even though I report back on more questions than concrete thoughts at this point, I feel as though I am making slow and steady progress.
Mentor Meeting – Collective Advising 1/30
On Tuesday, January 30, 2018, I participated in a collective advising workshop where I was able to present my research proposal and receive feedback for about 5-10 minutes. Professors Boesenecker and Nicholson suggested that I take a few steps back. I had found a true shift in language, however, my research question is ‘leading.’ It may be best if I consider more background information on REDD+. The shift in language is obvious but how does that translate to thoughtful and meaningful policy implications? It was suggested to see if I can find any studies on people’s perceptions of forests.The UN has provided the language, but is that being used in other national policies or by businesses as they follow the trend to be “sustainable?” Next steps are to continue developing the literature review section.
Mentor Meeting- Dr. Field 1/19
On Friday, January 19, 2018, I met with Dr. Field for about a half hour to discuss my proposed research on how the UNFCCC REDD+ Platform has redefined the dialogue surrounding deforestation. I explained how this puzzle may not be as comprehensive as when it was initially proposed. I started thinking about shifting gears towards a policy analysis. The distinction between deforestation and forest degradation have an obvious difference in meaning. There is concrete evidence that can be pointed to during negotiations of the treaty when there was a shift to include forest degradation to the conversation. But the question remains, how can I mature my project? As a student interested in environmental policy, I have considered tracing the policy to understand what type of language reflects varying actions. Furthermore, to what degree of influence does the UN have? Do countries have to abide by these policies? Where does the lack of concrete consequences play a role in policy-making? My next steps are to continue readings of the COP agendas and build on this puzzle.
Grappling with Ethical Naturalism (and Positivism)
Gorski’s basic suggestion is that social science can offer us genuine insights into human well-being. Gorski is in pursuit of combating the “separationist” view of facts and opinions as they very broadly translated into a division of empirical and normative inquiry, respectively. He states that “… facts also leak into the domain of values” therefore the wall between facts and values is more permeable than perceived.[1] Facts cannot alone exist without some moral or ethical background and these backgrounds are essential in establishing said ‘facts.’ Gorski relies on the “ethical naturalism” which allows for “natural and social science …(to)… correct and expand our ethical knowledge.”[2] The co-existence of these types of knowledge will allow developing of further knowledge. Positivist philosopher, Sam Harris, brings Gorski’s argument to a type of extreme. He states that “values are a kind of fact.”[3] He exemplifies this by stating that if it is wrong to lie, it must always be wrong to lie and if there were to be an exception that there would be no moral truths.[4] He agrees with religious thinkers who use the argument from their respective creators, that there are right and wrongs to moral questions.[5] Harris seems to make fun of the idea that normative inquiry can be rational when he asks if there are “moral expertise.”[6]
I find myself to agree with Gorski rather than Harris. To rely only on one form of knowledge seems to be irrational and narrowminded. I study International Relations, however, there is something to be said about the notion that this field of study is not a “hard” science. I will be more marketable if I specialize in the field and take more courses that are based on empirical learning. A holistic view is useful, however, let us note that my major itself it rooted on the “normative” scale of learning. I am not saying that I did this on purpose because I believe the normative inquiry is necessarily more valuable than scientific, rather I am drawing on this example to show that both are valuable. If ethics is neglected than our society is being unthoughtful but if empirical evidence is neglected, our society is being narrowminded.
My own research on how discourse shapes action does lead to a normative discovery of this kind. As an interpretivist, I am not prone to using normative assumptions, rather unpacking the way people perceive a concept and the implications of said perception.
Gorski Phillips S. “Beyond the Fact/Value Distinction: Ethical Naturalism and the Social Sciences.” Springer Symposium: Facts, Values and Social Science. Springer, October 16, 2013. 543-553.
Harris, Sam. “Science Can Answer Moral Questions.” TEDTalks. 2010.
[1] Philip S. Gorski, “Beyond the Fact/Value Distinction: Ethical Naturalism and the Social Sciences.” Springer Symposium: Facts, Values and Social Science. Springer, October 16, 2013. 553.
[2] Ibid, 551
[3]Sam Harris, “Science Can Answer Moral Questions,” TEDTalks, 2010.
[4] ibid
[5] ibid
[6] ibid
Culture, Politics, and Science
Plato, Tocqueville and Dr. Johnson all suggest that citizens of a democracy are predisposed against the idea of making normative and ethical arguments and evaluations. Plato suggests that because democracy aims for equality, everything is considered “right” or “correct.” If everyone is right, then all arguments would be empirical because no one can be wrong.[1] Tocqueville also shares similar thoughts. In his study of American life, he states that “America is, therefore, the one country in the world where the precepts of Descartes are least studied and best followed.”[2] As the founder of modern rationalism, Descartes suggests that opinions and actions should only be based on knowledge and reasoning, leaving no room for normative thinking. Tocqueville suggests that Americans have no time for normative evaluations because they easily take norms and established knowledge as is without questioning it. Lastly, Dr. Johnson argues that “lazy relativism,” the idea that people avoid intellectual debates by simply “agreeing to disagree,” has led to the lack of normative arguments.[3] While the three scholars wrote these beliefs during three different time periods, they all find themselves at the same conclusion. To a degree, I think they are correct. Tocqueville suggests that there are less knowledge-based decisions and I would further clarify that this is because of the acceptance of ‘common’ knowledge. What is found is that the “acceptance of knowledge” is more focused on normative knowledge so that normative arguments can be dismissed, as Dr. Johnson has theorized. The ideas presented by these three scholars are exemplified in my daily life. At American University, I am surrounded by politically inclined students. I have a friend who has a very different perspective on abortion access than me. Abortion access is a highly debated and divisive issue. However, for the sake of our friendship, we do not discuss abortion access because we both believe that our belief is ‘correct.’ We are both students who are capable of having a conversation, however, because our beliefs are deep-rooted we agree to ignore this glaring difference so that we can continue to be friends. If we were to have a discussion on abortion access we would likely use different language (pro and anti-life and pro and anti-choice) and feel upset with the lack of agreement about a moral and ethical discussion. My friend and I are both raised in the United States and both grew up knowing that our beliefs are equally valuable to anyone else’s. The discomfort associated with normative arguments is undesirable and thus leads to a lack of such discussions.
[1] Plato, Republic Book VIII
[2] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America Volume 2, Part 1, Chapter 1 (2000) 403-410.
[3] Leigh M. Johnson, “Lazy Relativism,” Read More Write More Think More Be More, November 7, 2009, http://www.readmorewritemorethinkmorebemore.com/2009/11/lazy-relativism.html
Johnson, Leigh M. “Lazy Relativism.” Read More Write More Think More Be More, November 7, 2009. http://www.readmorewritemorethinkmorebemore.com/2009/11/lazy-relativism.html
Plato. Republic Book VIII.
Tocqueville, de Alexis. Democracy in America Volume 2, Part 1, Chapter 1, 2000.