On Wednesday, March 21, 2018, I skyped with Dr. Jackson. Dr. Jackson regarding the last collective advising workshop. We spoke about the possible directions for my project and how to clearly articulate my question. We spoke about how becoming attached to the Discourse Analysis methodology itself had seemed to make me lose focus on the question that I was constantly concerned about. Dr. Jackson challenged me to think about the avenues of my research and how they fit in the with the small-n case methodology. This methodology would serve me better because I was generally interested in the effects of international policy on domestic law.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.