A New Global Climate Regime – The Social Justice Dimension of the

Guyana-Norway REDD+ Model

Yolanda Ariadne Collins, University of Westminster, ycollins@my.westminster.ac.uk

Paper to be presented at:

European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) Graduate Conference,

Bremen, 4th – 6th July 2012

Panel: The Distributive Effects of Environmental Politics:

National and International Perspectives

Abstract

The Guyana-Norway agreement is intended to serve as a model for global Reducing

Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) initiatives. Its development

raises questions of social justice and this research seeks to determine whether or not the

agreement is indeed socially just. The social justice considerations of the Guyana-Norway

agreement will be identified through the application of Andrew Dobson’s theory which is

used to determine the category of environmental sustainability within which the

agreement is categorised and the social justice theory which applies to it. Doreen Massey’s

theory of geographical responsibility is then used highlight additional social justice

considerations. Finally, the academic literature on social justice and climate change is

consulted to aid in the determination of the social justness of these considerations. The

conclusion arrived at is that the Guyana-Norway agreement is not socially just.

Introduction

The Guyana-Norway model of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest

Degradation (REDD+) formalises Norway’s intention to pay Guyana to forego the revenues

it could gain from exploiting its forests. This agreement, aimed at funding the preservation

of Guyana’s rainforest for the global good, raises many questions of social justice.

This work is approached with the principles of equality, justice and fairness in mind. It

seeks to identify these dimensions in a policy given life through the signing of a

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Guyana and Norway, two countries at

widely differing levels of development. The agreement represents Norway’s intention to

pay Guyana to preserve its rainforests in the fight against climate change based on the

awareness that tropical rainforests, such as those in Guyana, reduce greenhouse gas

emissions by trapping and storing carbon dioxide, the gas that is mainly responsible for

climate change. The rationale behind this initiative is that Guyana should be compensated

for foregoing the revenues it would have gained from exploiting the natural resources

within its forests for economic gain.

The Guyana-Norway agreement is a bilateral policy response to climate change, a challenge

characterised by its ethical ramifications and considerations (Gardiner, 2004). The

stakeholders of this agreement are global in scope since the overarching goal of the

agreement is to combat anthropocentric climate change which emerged through the

actions of developed nations and has the potential to drastically affect the fortunes of

developing nations across the globe (Stern, 2006).

This paper discusses whether the agreement is socially just by identifying and analysing

the social justice considerations of the agreement. Andrew Dobson’s theory is used to

identify the different types of environmental sustainability and the theories of social justice

applicable to them. This method is complemented with Doreen Massey’s theory of

Geographical Responsibility which allocates responsibility based on the networks of

relationships within which a society engages. Finally, the characteristics of a socially just

approach to addressing climate change is identified in the academic literature and used as a

measure through which the social justness of the Guyana-Norway agreement is

determined.

The Global Challenge and the Restraints on Development

Within the academic literature on climate change, it is widely held that efforts at mitigating

and adapting to the effects of climate change demand collective global action (Aldy et al,

2001; Bradley and Parks, 2007; Grubb, 1995). Deforestation is accountable for

approximately one fifth of global carbon emissions (Greenpeace International, 2011) and

as a result, international attention has shifted to decreasing emissions from forest

degradation and deforestation. Many commentators agree that rampant industrialisation

and environmental degradation were a consequence of the development process in the

now developed world (Harris, 2003; Bradley and Parks, 2007). As a result, the majority of

the world’s remaining forest cover can be found in developing countries. These forests play

an important role in mitigating the effects of climate change since they store and trap

carbon, the gas mainly responsible for global warming (Global Witness, 2010).

This awareness presents a development dilemma for forested developing countries since

natural resources must be exploited to facilitate their development. Forested countries are

being asked to forego development in the name of forest preservation and its associated

benefits to the world. This dilemma is even more acute when it is considered that

developing states are set to be more gravely affected by the impact of climate change than

are their developed counterparts (Stern, 2006). Should they pursue the conventional

development pathway of resource exploitation and industrialisation, developing countries

would in effect be worsening the problem of climate change for short term development

opportunities. Access to natural resources, a key driver of economic growth, is at stake.

Forested developing countries must choose between development paths that led to the

prosperity of developed countries, and preservation of their forests for the global good.

Enter REDD

In an attempt to break the impasse, developing countries began to look to the developed

world to fund the preservation of the natural resources that have implications for the

quality of the global environment. This strategy should accrue to the benefit of all since

funding would then be available to developing countries to facilitate their economic

development while preserving their natural resources for the benefit of the globe.

REDD+ is an international mechanism under negotiation within the United Nations climate

talks and other international forums which will provide compensation to governments,

communities, companies or individuals in developing countries for actions taken to Reduce

Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation below an established reference level.

In essence, it aims to incentivise forest protection over forest destruction... The ‘plus’1

relates to the scope of activities qualifying for compensation (Global Witness, 2010, pg. 2).

The thinking behind REDD is simply the compensation of forested countries for reducing

emissions from deforestation (Mitchell and Parker et al, 2008).

Highly forested and vulnerable

Guyana is a heavily forested developing country on the coast of South America. It possesses

an area of pristine rainforests roughly equivalent to the landmass of England. It is set to be

drastically affected by climate change. Ninety percent of its population resides on its low

coastal plain which amounts to roughly five percent of the land. This narrow strip of land is

six feet below the level of the sea, from which it is protected by a concrete sea wall that

runs along the coastline. Guyana’s coast is beset by regular flooding and any rise in sea

level is set to do major infrastructural damage that will negatively affect Guyana’s social,

political and economic makeup. The country is therefore highly vulnerable to climate

change (Office of the President Guyana, 2010).

Guyana offered the services of its forests to the world through its Low Carbon Development

Strategy (LCDS) in an effort to find funding for development along a low carbon pathway

which would see Guyana developing economically while emitting minimal levels of

greenhouse gases. For example, Guyana intends to invest some of these funds in the

1 Global Witness goes on to identify the three activities which constitute the plus. They are the conservation of

forest carbon stocks; sustainable management of forest; and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks.

construction of a hydro-powered plant that would reduce the country’s dependence on

fossil fuels.2

This LCDS has sought to assign an economic cost to ecological services provided by

Guyana’s rainforests to the world. This economic value to the world (EVW) was estimated

at 40billion United States Dollars (USD) per year. However, the economic value of the

forests to the nation (EVN) was estimated at the much lower value of 580million USD per

year representing the income Guyana would gain should it exploit the natural resources in

its forests. Through the LCDS, Guyana committed to preserving its forests on the condition

that the international community funds this initiative at a monetary value higher than the

EVN. In that way, Guyana, operating rationally, would be motivated to preserve its forests

(Office of the President Guyana, 2010).

2 This plant is itself not without controversy since large swathes of forests would have to be cleared to facilitate its

construction. Nevertheless, the stated aim of the LCDS is to facilitate Guyana’s development in an environmentally

friendly manner.

Norway’s response

On November 09th 2009, Guyana signed a MOU3 with Norway, an oil rich, developed

country. Norway’s response has thus far been the only affirmative response from the

international community. This agreement is intended to provide the world with a working

example of how the developed and developing world can work together to preserve the

world’s remaining rainforests in the fight against climate change (Office of the President

Guyana, 2010). Norway has committed to providing up to 250 million USD to Guyana over

a five year period to ensure the preservation of Guyana’s forests while facilitating Guyana’s

economic development along a low carbon development pathway. This would see Guyana

investing in low carbon technologies and investing in “high-potential low-carbon sectors,

such as fruits and vegetables, aquaculture, business process outsourcing and ecotourism

(Office of the President Guyana, 2010, p. 9)4.”

However, some concerns have been raised about the consequences of this strategy for

Guyana’s development. These include the financing gap between the EVN and the value of

Norway’s commitment5 which has not been filled by other states in the international

community and the governance challenges and the associated need for transparency in the

execution of the agreement. These concerns are paramount because they affect the

distribution of the proceeds of this initiative throughout the Guyanese economy. The

implementation of the LCDS will restrain some economic activities from which Guyanese

gain their livelihoods, such as forestry. Therefore, a key concern of the agreement centres

3 This core documents constitute the ‘the agreement’ and are referred to as such.

4 See Annex 1 for the list of areas in which LCDS funds are to be allocated which is used as an indication of

Guyana’s development level. 5 This financing gap would amount to the difference between the EVN at 580million USD and Norway’s

commitment of 250million USD which amounts to roughly 330million USD.

on how the funds gained from the LCDS will filter through the economy reaching

individuals whose livelihoods are negatively affected. While it is recognised that

transparency and good governance practices are key components of an effective REDD+

initiative, the concerns regarding the distribution and the fairness of the agreement overall

remain the core concern of this research.

Guyana’s development level is reflected in the outcomes it seeks from the implementation

of this agreement, such as the government’s intention to provide employment and to

improve social services such as health and education.6 Norway’s development level is

vastly different from that of Guyana. It is the world’s third largest exporter of petroleum

and the first country in the world to set a stabilisation target for CO2 emissions (Nilsen,

2010). Norway first committed to stabilising emissions at the 1989 level by the year 2000

but this aim was officially abandoned in the year 1995 with no new target set. In the year

2007, Norway again made an official commitment to be carbon neutral, this time by the

year 2050 (MOE, 2006-2007). The report also states that:

Norwegian climate policy is based on internationally recognised and well-established principles

and criteria. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are two key criteria for policy instruments...

The developed countries have a special responsibility for acting to reduce emissions, both

because they are responsible for the largest proportion of emissions until now, and because

they are in a better economic position to do so (MOE, 2007, pg. 4-5).

Norway intends to achieve these reductions by working towards a “more ambitious

international climate agreement ...” (MOE, 2007, pg. 5). It also aims to reduce its national

emissions. It states that “from about half and up to two-thirds of the cuts in total emissions

6 Ibid

by 2020 would be made in Norway” (MOE, 2007, pg. 5) while acknowledging that the

revision of international climate agreements may make a revision of the targets necessary.

Emissions from Norwegian territory will be neutralised by emission reductions Norway

pays for in other countries, through emissions trading or other mechanisms that become

available... When considering emission reductions outside Norway that are to be funded by

the Norwegian Government, the Government will concentrate on measures and projects

that will ensure that climate policy has the greatest possible positive effect on economic

development and poverty reduction in developing countries (MOE, 2007 pg. 10).

It is evident that Norway intends to mitigate a large percentage of its carbon emissions by

buying offsets from developing countries. At this point, it is apparent that considerations of

social justice in this case are likely to centre on issues such as the fairness of a bilateral

policy between two countries at such widely differing levels of development and Norway’s

intention to continue oil exports while paying developing countries like Guyana to preserve

its forests.

Theoretical Framework and Methodology

This research sought to determine whether the agreement could be considered socially

just. Andrew Dobson’s identification of the different conceptions of environmental

sustainability and the social justice theories most applicable to them was used to raise the

issues we should consider when assessing whether agreement is socially just. This is done

by identifying the form of environmental sustainability within which the agreement falls.

The social justice theory best suited for understanding this form of environmental

sustainability was then drawn out by asking of the case the questions which Dobson asks of

social justice theory. The social justice considerations of the agreement emerged through

this activity. Doreen Massey’s theory of geographical responsibility was then used to

complement the social justice considerations raised through the application of Dobson’s

framework. Finally, the social justice considerations raised through the use of the theories

of Dobson and Massey were compared to the socially just approaches posited to address

climate change in the academic literature.

Analysis

Dobson’s theory identified the architecture of the theory of social justice underlying the

Guyana-Norway agreement. The agreement was found to be consequential in its focus

demonstrated by its emphasis on an effective outcome, substantive in its address of specific

goals; and particular in its representation of the ideals and norms shared by its signatories.

The norms underpinning the agreement are understood to be shared between the

governments of Guyana and Norway. The intention of the Guyana-Norway agreement to

distribute environmental goods and bads, unproduced environmental goods and to some

degree, pre-conditional goods using the market value principle of distribution was also

highlighted.

Table 1 illustrates a frame of comparative characteristics which have emerged from the

research. The meshing of the social justice dimensions of the agreement and the most

suitable form of environmental sustainability (Conception A in Dobson’s framework)

Underlying Theory of Social Justice

Guyana – Norway Agreement

Conception A of Environmental Sustainability

Community of Justice Comprising:

• The International Community

• Norway and Guyana

• Local Guyanese Stakeholders

Aims to sustain Critical Natural Capital

Basic Structure:

• Substantive theory of the Good

• Consequentialist

• Underpinned by particular societal norms

Central focus: Human Welfare

Distributes:

• Environmental goods and bads

• Unproduced environmental goods

• Pre-conditional goods

Methods for achieving this:

• Renewing

• Substituting

• Protecting

Principle of Distribution:

• Market Value

Objects of Primary Concern:

• Present generation human needs

• Future generation human needs

• Present generation human wants

• Future generation human wants

• Present generation non-human needs

• Future generation non-human needs

Substitutability between human made and natural

capital is not always possible.

identifies the issues of contention within the agreement to which the literature can then be

applied to ascertain whether or not the agreement is socially just.

Table 1: Comparative Characteristics of the Guyana-Norway Agreement

The application of Dobson’s framework unearthed considerations of social justice spanning

the international community and focusing on the specific relationship between Guyana and

Norway, as well as those groups within Guyana that are especially vulnerable to the

conditions of the agreement. These concerns will be addressed in the following discussion:

1. The vulnerability of the local communities.

2. The ability of the agreement to meet its substantive goals through an emphasis on

consequences.

3. The use of market value as the principle of distribution for the preservation of

critical natural capital.

4. International justice and the failings of the global fight against climate change.

The vulnerability of the local communities

While the vulnerabilities of local communities were not delved into due to the abundance

of research material on this issue, it was surmised that local communities such as

indigenous groups are especially vulnerable to REDD+ agreements. This is based on the

fact that their livelihoods are most often dependent on the forests. The rights of these

communities are subject mainly to the governance arrangements of the REDD+ country

within which they reside. However, it was noted that in Guyana, the concerns of the locals

had risen to the international arena since the agreement mandated that the local

communities have significant and meaningful input in the implementation of the

agreement. It was also noted that tenure issues and related governance concerns are key to

the effective implementation of REDD+ agreements since they have the potential to impact

the agreement’s outcome. Sidelined and marginalised populations who feel that they are

receiving none of the benefits promised from the agreement will have no vested interest in

protecting the forests. As such, they are liable to undermine REDD+ efforts in their

attempts to sustain their livelihoods.

The ability of the agreement to meet its substantive goals through an emphasis on

consequences

The social justice principles identified as characterising the Guyana-Norway agreement

were extended to analyse the development policies of the signatories which were deemed

as having bearing on the agreement. As such, Norway’s oil export status was examined in

conjunction with Guyana’s gold exports and its oil ambitions. It was surmised that the

development paths of both Guyana and Norway conflict with the substantive goals of the

agreement calling into question their commitment to ensuring that global temperatures do

not exceed 2°C.

Climate change is a challenge where advances made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions

in one area could easily be negated through an increase of greenhouse gas emissions in

another. Therefore, the aims of the REDD+ initiatives must be approached holistically and

should have implications for all other development policies of the countries signatory to

the agreement. This consideration is paramount since failure to ensure that the

development policies of Guyana and Norway share the same aim may allow for policies to

be implemented that cancel out the gains made through these efforts.

When the widely different levels of development of both countries were taken into

consideration, it was concluded that Guyana’s historically low deforestation rate is

indicative of its relatively small contribution to climate change. The same claim cannot be

made for Norway whose status as a developed country is largely as a result of its oil

exports and has, as a result, greatly contributed to climate change.

The use of market value as the principle of distribution for the preservation of critical

natural capital

The research also highlighted the agreement’s principle of distribution as a cause for

concern. The market value principle of distribution upon which the agreement is based

could in effect undermine the effectiveness of the agreement. Firstly, the Economic Value to

the Nation (EVN) of Guyana’s rainforest as determined in the Guyana Low Carbon

Development Strategy (LCDS) was adjudged to be a fair monetary value of Guyana’s forests.

Guyana had stated in its LCDS that it would be operating rationally if it foregoes

exploitation of its forests for a level of funding equivalent to the EVN. However, to date, a

large deficit remains between the EVN and the amount of funding committed to supporting

the LCDS since no country but Norway has committed to supporting the agreement. Guyana

can therefore be said to be operating irrationally since it is, in effect, preserving its forests

for an amount that is dramatically less than the monetary value allocated to the forests.

The research also concluded that the market value principle of distribution serves to make

a scarce resource more valuable. The value of Guyana’s forests rises as deforestation rises.

This conclusion is based on the law of supply and demand which is reflected in the current

situation where Guyana is being compensated even as its rate of deforestation rises. In

other words, a high deforestation rate would provide more income for Guyana in future

agreements since the remuneration is determined according to the avoidance of this high

rate of deforestation. It was concluded, therefore, that the market value principle of

distribution actually undermines the agreement’s stated intention of preserving the critical

natural capital that is Guyana’s forests.

International justice and the failings of the global fight against climate change

The research also surmised that despite the international community’s failure at

establishing a binding agreement to address climate change, Norway (and other such

developed countries) has a moral imperative to assist developing countries to adapt to

climate change. As such, its assistance should not be contingent on the preservation of

forests. While it is recognised that Norway has supported, financially and otherwise, the

efforts of institutions such as the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and

has committed to lowering its national emissions, more is required to help poor countries

avoid the worst effects of climate change. Norway’s responsibility to act, whether based on

its historical emissions or the fact that its people emit more carbon per capita than do those

in Guyana, should not be contingent upon the preservation of forests. Norway’s REDD+

efforts should instead operate in conjunction with other more notable forms of assistance.

Geographical Responsibility

Doreen Massey’s theory of geographical responsibility further supports this conclusion.

Her theory provides additional insight into the social justice considerations of the Guyana-

Norway agreement since it attributes responsibility to Norway by virtue of the

relationships which form its identity. It attributes responsibility to certain actors on the

global stage by virtue of identity and can complement Dobson’s work by strengthening his

notion of the Community of Justice and by establishing an obligation to act.

Massey sees relationships as the base for the formation of identity. She sees identity as ever

changing and mutable since relationships are, by nature, always changing. Massey applies

this notion to the geographies associated with globalisation which she sees as

characterised by a complex web of engagements. She does not view globalisation as a

phenomenon all its own, possessing the power to gravely impact the local, but as a web of

engagements that is centred in certain local places. Her focus city, London, is a prime

example of a local place in which the network of relationships which constitutes

globalisation is centred. In other words, local place is often seen as the victim of

globalisation when, on the contrary, some local places can be seen as essential nodes within

the complex web of relationships that is globalisation. Such places can hardly be seen as

passive actors in the grand scheme of things, but instead, benefit largely from

globalisation’s emergence (Massey, 2004).

Massey posits that world cities, such as London, benefit from the inflows of resources to the

local place that it inhabits. As a result, other local places around the globe lose some of their

potential for growth and development. She states that London needs the rest of the world

to survive and cites the example of its large scale importation of nurses from Africa and

Asia to meet the demand ‘locally’. As a result, the health care system of the sending

countries is depleted of resources on which it depends. Most often, these are the resources

in which the sending countries have invested for its development. In essence, Massey

questions the responsibility of the receiving country. She states that the linkage between

London and the local places that support it is hardly traced. As a result, London, and

similarly other global cities, is not held responsible for the effects of this relationship on the

sending country. She states that by virtue of their identity, global cities must be held

responsible for the injustices and inequalities that support them (Massey, 2004).

When the focus on cities is removed, Massey’s theory becomes highly impactful on the

understanding of the social justice considerations of the Guyana-Norway agreement. In the

circumstances set out by the Memorandum of Understanding between Norway and Guyana,

it is clear that Norway accepts that it must take action to mitigate the effects of climate

change. The reasons for Norway’s acceptance of this fact beg the question of ‘Why Norway

feels motivated to fight against climate change?’ Massey’s theory speaks precisely to this

issue since it suggests that by virtue of the relationships through which Norway exploits

and exports its oil resources and its resulting effects on the climate, some obligation must

be held by Norway towards the local places whose resources are utilised to mitigate the

damage.

By extension, Guyana becomes a local place that is affected by actions on the global scale.

The impact of industrialised countries on the emergence of the phenomenon of climate

change directly impacts Guyana and its potential for development as a local place. In

essence, Guyana’s agency is affected by the interests of the international community.

Massey’s theory establishes that the global does not supersede the local as convention

seems to suggest, nor does it transcend all local considerations and act as a determiner of

local outcomes and circumstance. She focuses on the manner in which the local affects the

global with particular focus on certain local places that are profoundly influential on global

relations.

Massey’s theory of geographical distribution complements Dobson’s work in that it raises

concerns derived from the case’s community of justice which are associated with Norway’s

economic activities. These considerations are not immediately observable through the

application of the framework derived from Dobson’s work. We are reminded that the

rationale behind Doreen Massey’s theory of geographical responsibility, as previously

described, is that global places are defined by their relationships and that those global

places are responsible to the local places whose resources they utilise. The core ideas being

taken from this theory is responsibility by virtue of identity; and identity made possible

through relationships. Additionally, Massey’s ideas of the interaction between local and

global are also instructive. In applying Massey’s theory to the Guyana-Norway case, both

countries are depicted as local places being affected by the global while Norway is a local

place that can and has, in turn, impacted the global.

While Norway differs greatly from Massey’s typology of an impactful global place (London)

in its socio-economic make up, it can clearly be recognised as a local place that is impactful

on the global space. Norway is a great supporter of international efforts to address global

challenges as demonstrated by its financial support of multilateral institutions such as the

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (Rosendal, 2007). Norway’s impact on

the global space is also reflected in its positioning as one of the world’s largest oil

exporters, an activity from which its large financial wealth can be attributed.

While Norway’s seemingly dual approach to the environment is debated at home, some

theorists are of the view that Norway will continue to export petroleum while seeking out a

leadership position on environmental affairs globally.

It seems evident, however, that the key challenge in Norwegian climate politics will

continue to be to combine an expansive petroleum industry with an active and

progressive climate policy worthy of a self-proclaimed environmental pioneer. With

an expected 90 percent increase in the GHG emissions from the petroleum industry

from 1990 to 2010, the TG (thinking globally) discourse is the only discourse

capable of squaring the circle, and it is likely to appear more and more attractive for

policy-makers. (Hovden and Lindseth, 2004, pp. 78)

This quote depicts the state of Norwegian environmental policy and surmises that the

Norwegian discourse which emphasizes buying cheaper carbon offsets from developing

countries is an environmental policy that is likely to persist since it bridges the gap that

exists between the pursuance of petroleum exports while claiming stewardship on issues

related to mitigating climate change (Hovden and Lindseth, 2004).

The exploitation of Norway’s natural resources has therefore been a source of the very

greenhouse gas emissions that it seeks to limit. While the burning of oil and gas in Norway

may not result in greenhouse emissions that are explicitly attributed to the country, it is

undeniable that the economic activities in which Norway engages are largely responsible

for greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of the country in which the resource is utilised. In

the case under consideration, it is the effects of the utilisation of these resources which

directly impact the fortunes of another local place. Outside of the preservation of its forests

for global well being, Guyana possesses another key interest in the outcome of climate

change mitigation and adaptation efforts. Its capital city is threatened, and in fact has

already been affected, by severe flooding. This occurrence is set to recur at a much more

drastic degree due to the effects of global warming.

Ultimately, Guyana’s coast land and its capital city where the majority of its population

resides will be inundated with sea water. Hence, the effects of activities taking place in

Norway and other local places around the world will debilitate Guyana’s development. This

occurrence, though not directly attributable solely to Norway, is undeniable. Norway’s

activities are therefore not only impactful on the global but on the local place. Norway’s

very identity, as a donor to the Guyana LCDS in the fight against climate change, is

dependent on its oil exports to the rest of the world which undeniably contributed to the

emergence of the challenge that is climate change.

It can therefore be said that Guyana’s identity, as a local place, is as a result of Norway’s

global efforts as well as its national ones. International negotiations through the UNFCCC

brought about the recognition of the need for REDD+ initiatives globally. This recognition

fuelled the preparation of Guyana’s LCDS and the resultant Memorandum of Understanding

between Norway and Guyana illustrating the impact of the global on local. On the other

hand, Norway’s global exports of oil and the resultant burning of fossil fuels play no small

role in necessitating this challenge and forming the very identity that allows Norway to

demonstrate munificence in assisting poor countries like Guyana to develop in a low

carbon manner. Should this attribution of responsibility become entrenched in the global

community, Guyana’s circumstance would no longer be one where it is relegated to the

position of lobbying and negotiating for funds to adapt to climate change. Recognition of

the responsibility of Norway and other countries should lead to a mandate of action which

seeks to iron out the inequalities between the developed and developing world in the fight

against climate change.

Conclusion

It is clear that when approached holistically with consideration for the context in which the

Guyana-Norway agreement must function, the perceived fairness of the agreement

dwindles. In other words, the parties of the agreement engage in activities that

demonstrate a mismatch between the substantive goals of the agreement and their overall

approach to development. Given the reach and scope of the challenge of climate change,

this raises concerns about the ability of agreements of this nature to reach the desired

outcome. The consequence of these agreements could not be as paramount as portrayed

when other activities are pursued that are likely to undermine this consequence.

Thus far, it is evident that the Guyana-Norway agreement is not socially just in the context

within which it operates and this is evidenced by its incompatibility with the other

development policies pursued by its signatories. While the agreement itself may be a fair

sale of environmental services in the global arena, its efficacy is severely constrained by the

outcome in which it operates. In order for the substantive goal of the Guyana-Norway

agreement to be reached, the associated development pathways of its signatories and of the

entire global community need to operate in tandem with the agreement. This requires a

removal of the global Janus faced approaches to development as demonstrated by both

countries and a commitment to changing the very structure of their societies, making it

more aware of social justice considerations in these efforts and cognizant of the enormity

of the challenge being posed by climate change.

If we were to subscribe to the notion by Nozick that stated that no just outcome can emerge

from a historical situation that is socially unjust (Dobson, 1998), we would naturally

conclude that the inequalities built into the global climate change negotiations from which

the Guyana-Norway agreement stemmed, are therefore also socially unjust. This reflects

recognition of the fact that an agreement cannot be judged without context and as a result,

the social injustices surrounding the agreement permeate the facade of social justness

which surrounds its development.

It was previously noted that Guyana and Norway intended for this agreement to serve as an

example for other REDD+ initiatives around the globe since it is the most conclusive

agreement to date. The fact that this study was conducted on what is intended to serve as a

pilot agreement for other REDD+ initiatives has negative implications for the social

justness of these global REDD+ initiatives which also operate in a socially unjust global

environment while depending on the distributional principle of market value.

Bibliography

(2009) “Joint Concept Note”

(2009) “Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the

Cooperative Republic of Guyana and the Government of the Kingdom of Norway regarding

Cooperation on Issues related to the Fight against Climate Change, the Protection of

Biodiversity and the Enhancement of Sustainable Development”

(2010) “Administration Agreement: Guyana REDD Plus Investment Fund between

Royal Norwegian Ministry of Affairs and International Development Association” TRUST

FUND MTO NO. 069017

(2010) “Groundstar now aims to drill for oil in August” Stabroek News, 21 June,

Available at <http://www.stabroeknews.com/2010/archives/06/21/groundstar-now-

aims-to-drill-for-oil-in-august/> Last accessed on September 4th, 2011

Andresen, Steinar and Butenschon, Siri Hals (2001) “Norwegian Climate Policy: From

Pusher to Laggard” International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics

1, Kluwer Academic Publishers, the Netherlands

Andy, Joseph, Orszag, P. and Stiglitz, Joseph (2001) “Climate Change: An Agenda for Global

Action”, Pew Centre on Global Climate Change

Climate and Pollution Agency (2010) “Climate Change” Available online at

<http://www.environment.no/Topics/Climate/Norways-climate/Climate-change-

mitigation/> Last accessed on September 4th, 2011

Cotula, Lorenzo and Mayers, James (2009) “Tenure in REDD: Start Point or Afterthought”,

International Institute for Environment and Development, United Kingdom

Dobson, Andrew (1998) “Justice and the Environment: Conceptions of Environmental

Sustainability and Dimensions of Social Justice” Oxford University Press, United States of

America

Flyvbjerg, Bent (2006) “Five Misunderstandings about Case Study Research”, Qualitative

Inquiry, Volume 12 Number 2, April 2006 219-245, 2006, Sage Publications

Fry, Ian (2008) “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation:

Opportunities and Pitfalls in Developing a New Legal Regime” RECIEL 17 (2) 2008

Gardiner, Stephen (2004) “Ethics and Climate Change”, Ethics 114 (April, 2004)

Giddens, Anthony (2009) “The Politics of Climate Change”, Polity Press, United Kingdom

Global Witness (2010) “Understanding REDD: The Role of Governance, Enforcement and

Safeguards in Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation”

Greenpeace International (2011) “Bad Influence: How McKinsey inspired plans lead to

rainforest destruction” The Netherlands

Griffiths, Tom (2009) “Seeing REDD? Forests, Climate Change Mitigation and the rights of

indigenous peoples and local communities”, Forest People’s Programme

Grubb, Michael (1995) “Seeking fair weather: Ethics and the International Debate on

Climate Change”, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944), Vol.

71, No. 3, Ethics, the Environment and the Changing International Order (Jul., 1995), pp.

463-496

Guyana Government Information Agency (2005) “The New Amerindian Act” Georgetown,

Guyana

Hall, Anthony (2008) “Paying for Ecological Services: The Case of the Brazilian Amazonia”

Journal of International Development 20

Harris, Paul (2003) “Fairness, Responsibility and Climate Change” Carnegie Council on

Ethics and International Affairs

Harris, Paul (2010) “World Ethics and Climate Change: From International to Global

Justice” Edinburg University Press, Edinburgh

Hoveden, Eivind and Lindseth, Gard (2004) “Discourses in Norwegian Climate Policy:

National Action or Thinking Globally” Political Studies 2004 Volume 52

Howden, Daniel (2009) “Norway and Guyana sign Rainforest Deal” The Independent, 19

November, Available at <http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-

change/norway-and-guyana-sign-rainforest-deal-1823225.html> Last accessed on

September 4th, 2011

International Human Rights Clinic (2007) “All that Glitters - Gold Mining in Guyana: The

Failure of Government Oversight and the Human Rights of Amerindian Communities”

Human Rights Programme, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts

International Institute for Environment and Development (2009) “Independent Review of

the Stakeholder Consultation Process for Guyana’s Low Carbon Development Strategy”

Jamieson, Dale (2001) “Climate Change and Global Environmental Justice”, in Changing the

Atmosphere, ed. Miller, Clark and Edwards, Paul, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

USA

Massey, Doreen (2004) “Geographies of Responsibility”, Geografiska Annaler: Series B,

Human Geography, 86(1), pp. 5–18.

Nokta, Shyam and Brattskar, Hans, “Norway and Guyana – a partnership for reduced forest

carbon emission”

Norwegian Ministry of the Environment (2007) “Norwegian Climate Policy”, Summary in

English: Report No. 34 (2006–2007) to the Storting

Office of the President Guyana (2008) “Creating Incentives to avoid Deforestation”

Office of the President Guyana (2010) “A Low Carbon Development Strategy: Transforming

Guyana’s Economy while Combating Climate Change - Draft Three”

Page, Edward (2007) “Climate Change, Justice and Future Generations”, Edward Elgar

Publishing Limited, United Kingdom

Parker, Charlie, and Mitchell, Andrew et al (2008) “The Little REDD Book”, Global Canopy

Programme, United Kingdom

Posner, Eric and Weisbach, David (2010) “Climate Change Justice”, Princeton University

Press, United Kingdom

Roberts, J. Timmons and Parks, Bradley (2006) “A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality,

North-South Politics and Climate Policy” MIT Press, United Kingdom

Rosendal, Kristin, (2007) “Norway in the UN environmental policies: ambitions and

influence” Int environ agreements 2007:7

Rozhnov, Konstantin (2007) “Norway and Russia ‘open up for business’ in the Barents sea”

BBC News, 15 September Available at <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11299024>

Last accessed on September 4th, 2011

Sandker, Nyame, Forster, Collier et al (2009) “REDD Payments as Incentive for Reducing

Forest Loss” Conservation Letters 3 (2010) 114–121

Stake, Robert (1995) “The Art of Case Study Research” SAGE Publications, United Kingdom

Streck and Scholz (2006) “The Role of Forests in Global Climate Change: Whence we come

and where we go” International Affairs 82: 5

Thomas, Clive (2010) “Guyana’s LCDS: Lost in the Forests” Stabroek News, March 7

Available at

<http://www.stabroeknews.com/2010/features/03/07/guyana%E2%80%99s-lcds-lost-

in-the-forests/> Last accessed on September 4th, 2011

Timmons Roberts and Bradley C. Parks (2007) “A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality,

North-South Politics and Climate Policy” Massachusetts Institute of Techonology

Trevin, Jorge and Nasi, Robert (2009) “Forest Law Enforcement and Governance and Forest

Practices in Guyana” CIFOR and IWOKRAMA

Yin, Robert (2003) “Case Study Research: Design and Methods”, SAGE Publications LTD,

United Kingdom