Cited by 59Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementForest Management and PolicyLand Rights and Reforms

Beyond rewards and punishments in the Brazilian Amazon: practical implications of the REDD+ discourse

Open access
Gebara, Maria, Agrawal, Arun·2017·Forests

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.3390/f8030066

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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
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