Why REDD+? : a study of the continued support for REDD+

anglais. Well into its second decade REDD+ is still struggling to achieve what it set out to do. The envisioned win-win scenario was believed to be a cost-effective measure, where the protection of forests would be made more profitable than deforestation, by paying the owners and users of the forests for the carbon stored within the trees. However, REDD+ has proven to be neither cheap, quick or simple. Some of the criticism has been that it does not have a sound economic system in place, it fails in addressing the major drivers of deforestation, and its results are delayed and uncertain. Furthermore, studies have found that in certain areas REDD+ has led to green grabs, increased inequality and exclusions. Despite widespread criticism abroad, there has been little controversy on REDD+ within Norway, its largest contributor - fueling the program with 3 billion NOK annually. From the onset on, there has been political agreement on continuing the support, even through a shift in government from a red-green coalition to a blue-blue conservative government. This thesis investigates Norwegian politicians’ perceptions of REDD+ and how these have developed throughout a decade of experiences with the program. It argues that the malleable, flexible structure of REDD+ has served in favour of the program, and allowed divergent motivations and ideologies to co-exist despite its obvious challenges. Furthermore, this thesis argues that a general lack of interest for acquiring new knowledge on REDD+ over the last decade – intentionally or not – may have led to a lack of debate on whether REDD+ is purposeful at this time in history. This could come at high costs.

M-IR