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.
Day: February 14, 2018
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.