Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD), negotiated under the UNFCCC, aspires to decrease greenhouse gas emissions by paying tenure rights holders in developing countries not to cut down forests. The rationale, in order words, is to make trees more valuable standing than cut down. Scholars are however concerned that the scheme will be ineffective if the causes of deforestation, the so-called drivers, are not adequately addressed. Negotiators to the UNFCCC have consequently adopted a decision on drivers. This paper undertakes a chronological discourse analysis of the negotiations over drivers, suggesting two broad discourses; one ‘strong’ where consumption patterns in the Global North are pivotal if REDD is to be effective; and one ‘weak’ where the impact of Northern consumption is silenced. The paper concludes by noting that the weak discourse was institutionalised which may cause future problems for the effective mitigation of greenhouse gases in tropical forests.
