pp 1–15 | Cite as

Identifying the powers, players, and emotions associated with REDD+ implementation: The case of Guyana’s LCDS

  • Anthony R. CummingsEmail author
  • Sarah K. Martin
Research Article


REDD+ remains a critical tool for dealing with increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Like other global-level initiatives, REDD+ has strong supporters and critics. Despite the division over its merits, little has been done to understand how a national-level audience responds to the program’s arrival in a partner country and which players drive a program’s implementation. Here we coded the archives of two Guyanese newspapers to identify the policy actors, institutions, and concepts (players) that drove the implementation of the country’s Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS). Two groups of players—super-key and key—dictated the direction of the LCDS implementation. Super-key players used the state-owned media to advocate their positions, while players who felt they would be punished by the LCDS implementation published their positions in the privately-owned media. Therefore, like responses to other global-level environmental challenges, views around the LCDS were divided.


Guyana Indigenous peoples LCDS Mass media REDD+ 



We are grateful to the Guyana Chronicle and Stabroek News who made their archives available online. We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers who provided invaluable comments that strengthened this paper. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.


  1. Beymer-Farris, B.A., and T. Bassett. 2012. The REDD menace: Resurgent protectionism in Tanzania’s mangrove forests. Global Environmental Change 22: 332–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boykoff, M.T. 2008. The cultural politics of climate change discourse in UK tabloids. Political Geography 27: 549–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Byrne, J., K. Hughes, W. Rickerson, and L. Kurdgelashvili. 2007. American policy conflict in the greenhouse: Divergent trends in federal, regional, state, and local green energy and climate change policy. Energy Policy 35: 4555–4573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Corbera, E., and H. Schroeder. 2011. Governing and implementing REDD+. Environmental Science & Policy 14: 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cronin, T., L. Santoso, M. Di Gregorio, M. Brockhaus, S. Mardiah, and E. Muharrom. 2016. Moving consensus and managing expectations: Media and REDD+ in Indonesia. Climatic Change 137: 57–70. Scholar
  6. Cummings, A.R., and J.M. Read. 2016. Drawing on traditional knowledge to identify and describe ecosystem services associated with Northern Amazon’s multiple-use plants. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 12: 39–56. Scholar
  7. De Barros, A.E., E.A. Macdonald, M.H. Matsumoto, R.C. Paula, S. Nijhawan, Y. Malhi, and D.W. Macdonald. 2014. Identification of areas in Brazil that optimize conservation of forest carbon, jaguars, and biodiversity. Conservation Biology 28: 580–593. Scholar
  8. Di Gregorio, M., S. Price, C. Saunders, and M. Brockhaus. 2012. Code book for the analysis of media frames in articles on REDD. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
  9. Entman, R. 1993. Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43: 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Forest People’s Program. 2009. Indigenous peoples’ rights, REDD and the draft Low Carbon Development Strategy (Guyana). Retrieved May 10, 2019, from
  11. Gebara, M.F., and A. Agrawal. 2017. Beyond rewards and punishments in the Brazilian amazon: Practical implications of the REDD+ discourse. Forests. Scholar
  12. Gebara, M.F., P.H. May, R. Carmenta, B. Calixto, M. Brockhaus, and M. Di Gregorio. 2017. Framing REDD+ in the Brazilian national media: How discourses evolved amid global negotiation uncertainties. Climatic Change 141: 213–226. Scholar
  13. Gibbs, H.K., S. Brown, and J.O. Niles. 2007. Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: Making REDD a reality. Environmental Research Letters 2: 1–13.Google Scholar
  14. Government of Guyana. 2015. The reference level for Guyana’s REDD+ Program. Retrieved May 10, 2019, from
  15. Griffiths, T. 2008. Seeing ‘REDD’? Forests, climate change mitigation and the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. Forest Peoples Programme, Retrieved May 10, 2019, from
  16. Guyana Bureau of Statistics. 2012. Population and Housing Census. Bureau of Statistics, Georgetown, Guyana, Retrieved May 10, 2019, from
  17. Guyana Chronicle. 2010. LCDS has created international recognition for Guyana. Retrieved May 10, 2019, from
  18. Guyana Chronicle. 2009a. LCDS: An Example of Guyana Pursuing Solutions. Retrieved May 10, 2019, from
  19. Guyana Chronicle. 2009b. Guyana’s LCDS successfully exposed in New York. Retrieved May 10, 2019, from
  20. Guyana Chronicle. 2009c. Upgraded LCDS to be released within two weeks. Retrieved May 10, 2019, from
  21. Guyana Forestry Commission & Indofur Asia Pacific. 2015. Guyana REDD+ Monitoring Reporting & Verification System (MRVS). Year 5 Summary Report. 1 January 2014–31 December 2014. Version 1. Retrieved May 10, 2019, from
  22. Harris, F. 2012. Human–environment interactions. In Global environmental issues, ed. F. Harris, 3–18. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Khatri, D.B., T.T. Pham, M. Di Gregorio, R. Karki, N.S. Paudel, M. Brockhaus, and R. Bhushal. 2016. REDD+ politics in the media: A case from Nepal. Climatic Change 138: 309–323. Scholar
  24. Khemraj, T. 2010. Budget 2010 and structural production transformation. Retrieved May 10, 2019, from
  25. Larson, A.M., M. Brockhaus, W.D. Sunderlin, A. Duchelle, A. Babon, T. Dokken, and T.T. Pham. 2013. Land tenure and REDD+: The good, the bad and the ugly. Global Environmental Change 23: 678–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 2016. Guyana wins more climate change recognition. Retrieved May 10, 2019, from
  27. Neuendorf, K. 2017. The content analysis guidebook, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Nhem, S., Y.J. Lee, and S. Phin. 2017. Sustainable management of forest in view of media attention to REDD+ policy, opportunity and impact in Cambodia. Forest Policy and Economics 85: 10–21. Scholar
  29. Nielsen, T. 2014. The role of discourses in governing forests to combat climate change. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law & Economics 14: 265–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Overman, H., N. Butt, A.R. Cummings, J.B. Luzar, and J.M.V. Fragoso. 2018. National REDD+ implications for tenured indigenous communities in Guyana, and their impact on forest carbon. Forests 9: 231. Scholar
  31. Osborne, T., L. Bellante and N. von Hedemann. 2014. Indigenous Peoples and REDD+: A Critical Perspective. Indigenous Peopleʼs Biocultural Climate Change Assessment Initiative. Retrieved May 10, 2019, from
  32. Painter, J. 2010. Challenges, summoned by science: Reporting climate change at Copenhagen and beyond. London: Institute for the Study of Journalism.Google Scholar
  33. Persaud, P. 2010. Upper Mazaruni Toshaos have no basis for their opposition to LCDS and REDD+. Retrieved May 10, 2019, from:
  34. Pham, T.T., M. Di Gregorio, and M. Brockhaus. 2017. REDD+ politics in the media: A case study from Vietnam. International Forestry Review 19: 69–80. Scholar
  35. Pokorny, B., I. Scholz, and W. De Jong. 2013. REDD+ for the poor or the poor for REDD+? About the limitations of environmental policies in the Amazon and the potential of achieving environmental goals through pro-poor policies. Ecology and Society 18: 3. Scholar
  36. Ram, C. 2009. A review of the Low Carbon Development Strategy. Retrieved May 10, 2019, from
  37. Sills, E.O., S.S. Atmadja, C. de Sassi, A.E. Duchelle, D.L. Kweka, I.A.P. Resosudarmo, and W.D. Sunderlin (eds.). 2014. REDD+ on the ground: A case book of subnational initiatives across the globe. Bogor: CIFOR. Retrieved May 10, 2019, from
  38. Stabroek News. 2009a. Mercury in mining will have to go—Jagdeo. Retrieved May 10, 2019, from
  39. Stabroek News. 2009b. GGMC: Mercury mining to be phased out. Retrieved May 10, 2019, from
  40. Stabroek News. 2009c. PPP welcomes AFC support of LCDS. Retrieved May 10, 2019, from
  41. Stabroek News. 2010. Draft report on new mining rules for consideration. Retrieved May 10, 2019, from
  42. Thomas, C. 2010. Norway’s disingenuousness once more. Retrieved May 10, 2019, from
  43. Wallbott, L. 2014. Indigenous peoples in UN REDD+ negotiations: “Importing power” and lobbying for rights through discursive interplay management. Ecology and Society 19: 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. World Bank. 2014. Guyana—Protected Areas System Project: Indigenous peoples development plan. Retrieved May 10, 2019, from

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geospatial Information Science, School of Economic, Political and Policy SciencesThe University of Texas at DallasRichardsonUSA

Personalised recommendations