Beyond rewards and punishments in the Brazilian Amazon: practical implications of the REDD+ discourse
Open accessAbstract
Through different policies and measures reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation and enhancing conservation (REDD+) has grown into a way to induce behavior change of forest managers and landowners in tropical countries. We argue that debates around REDD+ in Brazil have typically highlighted rewards and punishments, obscuring other core interventions and strategies that are also critically important to reach the goal of reducing deforestation, supporting livelihoods, and promoting conservation (i.e., technology transfer and capacity building). We adopt Foucault’s concepts of governmentality and technologies of governance to provide a reading of the REDD+ discourse in Brazil and to offer an historical genealogy of the rewards and punishments approach. By analyzing practical elements from REDD+ implementation in the Brazilian Amazon, our research provides insights on the different dimensions in which smallholders react to rewards and punishments. In doing so, we add to the debate on governmentality, supplementing its focus on rationalities of governance with attention to the social practices in which such rationalities are embedded. Our research also suggests that the techniques of remuneration and coercion on which a rewards and punishments approach relies are only supporting limited behavioral changes on the ground, generating negative adaptations of deforestation practices, reducing positive feedbacks and, perhaps as importantly, producing only short‐term outcome…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
When transparency is used to increase surveillance, it can push the responsibility and associated cost of compliance to upstream actors that lack resources to adhere to standards or demonstrate sustainable behaviour.
“Thus, when transparency is used to increase surveillance (Gardner et al., 2018), it can also push the responsibility and associated cost of compliance to those upstream actors at the beginning of the supply chain that lack substantial resources to either adhere to the standards or to demonstrate sustainable behaviour already in place (Gupta, 2010;Gebara and Agrawal, 2017).”
From Making deforestation risk visible. Discourses on bovine leather supply chain in Brazil (2020) · cites this paper as Gebara and Agrawal, 2017
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 114 · Cited by 59
- Authors
- Gebara, M., & Agrawal, A.
- Affiliations
- Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro (BR)
- University of Michigan (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gebara, Maria
- Venue
- Forests
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2017-03-02
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 66
- ISSN
- 1999-4907 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2594398111
- Cited by
- 59
- References
- 114
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6
- FWCI
- 5.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Forests (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Land Rights and Reforms
- Keywords
- REDD+, deforestation, forest degradation, governmentality, reward and punishment, smallholder farmers, Brazilian Amazon, technology transfer, capacity building, land use change, climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, behavior change, local heterogeneity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review