comparing progress in national redd+ policy processes

THINKING beyond the canopy

Comparing progress in national REDD+ policy processes

Monica Di Gregorio (CIFOR and University of Leeds/SRI)

9th April 2014– IIED, London


Analysis of national REDD+ policy processes

• 13 countries studied since 2009• Analysis of the Context of REDD+ 2)Media analysis 3) Policy network analysis• Case studies and comparative studies

2


Comparative studies

Qualitative comparative analysis

• Assesses factors that have enabled REDD+ policy progress

• 2 step-QCA: Institutional and proximate conditions (policy processes) in 12 countries

Comparative policy network analysis

• Investigates progress in relation to:

• Power structures: distribution of power & type of interactions in 7 countries

Comparative media analysis

• Investigates the potential of public discourses in the national media to facilitate policy change in 7 countries

3


QCA: How is progress in REDD+ defined? The phased approach (Meridian 2009, UNFCCC)

4


Analysis: Two-step QCA

Outcome variable: Establishment of comprehensive policies targeting transformational change in the REDD+ policy domain (phase II)

Brazil, Indonesia and Vietnam Six factors divided into two categories to explain outcome

• Institutional setting: pressure on forest resources (PRES); effective forest policy and governance (EFF); pre-existing CC/ reduction of deforestation policies (CHA)

• Policy process: national ownership (OWN); transformational coalitions (COAL); inclusiveness of the policy process (INC)

5


Results:Institutional conditions Policy conditions

Pre-existing CC and forestry reforms (CHA) as a prerequisite for progress REDD+

but only in the presence of either high pressure on forest resources (PRES:

Brazil and Indonesia) or key features of effective forest legislation,

policy and governance (EFF: Vietnam)

Where an enabling institutional setting is in place, two proximate conditions proofed to be crucial for all three successful countries (Brazil, Vietnam and Indonesia): National ownership (OWN) Transformational coalitions (COAL)

Indonesia: PRES*eff*CHA*OWN*COAL*incl

6


Policy Network Analysis

Assess impact of power structures on REDD+ progress Analysis underway in 8 countries (Brazil, Cameroon,

Indonesia, Nepal, Peru, Papua New Guinea, Tanzania, Vietnam >1000 interviews hours)

One comparative and seven case study analysis (forthcoming special issue Ecology and Society)

7


Comparative PNA: Power structures

8


Comparative PNA: Power structures

Policy change in arenas with complex socio-ecological relations and high trade-offs between development and conservation agendas can entail high political costs (Bumpus and Liverman 2011). Hypothesis: In such circumstances, a mix of conflict and cooperation facilitates policy change and progress

9


PNA Results

Honeymoon phase: Nepal, Tanzania and Cameroon: Countries in the early stages of national REDD+ policy

debates, display dominance of cooperation

Bargaining for change: Indonesia, Brazil, PNG: Power struggles intensify: bargaining (conflictual

cooperation) becomes dominant when the national REDD+ policy process starts to address specific policies and measures, particularly on controversial issues such as benefit sharing

State driven: Vietnam: dominance of cooperation indicates lack of inclusion, underreporting of conflict (latent)

10


Comparative media: Results

Dominant public discourse: simplistic win-win scenarios (state & international actors) Avoids debates around drivers of deforestation (legal and

illegal logging and conversion of forest to plantation agriculture or other land uses)

Recognizes the need for institutional and governance reforms

Transformational Change discourse: environmental justice of domestic NGOs and CSOs: Recognizes trade-offs between REDD+ & economic

development, resource access and livelihoods Questions power structures supporting drivers of

deforestation and degradation (indirectly)11


Summary Context matters: Pre-existing institutional change (forestry &

CC) facilitates REDD+ design, but either forest pressure needs to be high or effective forest legislation, policy and governance in place

Policy processes factors of national ownership and transformational coalitions crucial: but could only be effective in an enabling institutional setting

Power structures: (symmetric) bargaining (conflictual cooperation) facilitates policy change and progress

Public discourse: limited engagement of state actors with demands of domestic non-state actors, and lack of attention to business sector in areas that drive deforestation and forest degradation

12


Where do we go from here?

Keep the major drivers of deforestation high on the agenda – no action without awareness

• Facilitate REDD+ progress through policy integration and sectoral reforms (forestry, agriculture, economic development – low carbon economy)

• Engage actors from sectors driving deforestation and forest degradation in REDD+ policy debates (private sector)

Bring equity back on the agenda both at international and national level

• Bring together state and non-state actors around environmental justice issues: tenure, benefit-sharing and safeguards debates (consider possible trade-offs)

13


www.cifor.cgiar.orgwww.cifor.cgiar.org

Based on: Korhonen-Kurki, K., Sehring, J., Brockhaus, M., Di Gregorio, M. 2014. Enabling factors for establishing REDD+ in a context of weak governance. Climate Policy, 14(2): 167-186.Brockhaus, M., and Di Gregorio, M., Forthcoming. National REDD+ policy networks: From cooperation to conflict. Ecology and Society.Di Gregorio, M., Brockhaus, M., Cronin, T., Muharrom, E., Mardiah, S., Santoso, L. Deadlock or transformational change? Exploring public discourse on REDD+ across seven countries (submitted Global Environmental Politics)Di Gregorio, M. et al. 2013. Equity and REDD+ in the Media: A Comparative Analysis of Policy Discourses. Ecology and Society, 18:2. DOI: 10.5751/ES-05694-18023

We acknowledge the support from:Norad and the Ministry of Climate Change and Environment, Norway, , AusAID

(Australia), European Commission, DECC& DFID (UK), & all research partners and individuals that have contributed to the GCS research


Appendix QCA: Outcome

Outcome Presence Absence Indicators of presence

Evaluation

comprehensive policies targeting transformational change in the REDD+ domain

New institutions, capacity-buildingestablished bycommitted actorsThey support concretepolicy formulation and outputsPolicies built on a broad societalconsensus for change

New institutions and proceduresnot established or met with resistanceREDD+ policy formulationfragmented or undertaken mainlyby external actorsBusiness-as-usual approachesdominate media and politics

• MRV system developed

• Coordination body established

• REDD financing used effectively

• National strategy in place

• Grievance procedures or other mechanisms to enhance accountability in REDD+ systems established

Two or moreindicators ofPresence = 1Zero or oneindicator ofPresence = 0

15


Appendix QCA: Institutional factorsCondition Presence Absence Indicators of presence EvaluationPressure from shortage of forest resources (PRES)PRES

Forests are under pressure from highdeforestation rate

Abundant or recovering forest resources witha low to medium or negative (reforestation)deforestation rate

Forest transition stage

Deforestation rate

FT stage 2 or defor rate> 0.5% =1 FT stage 1, 4, 5deforestation rate<0.5% = 0

effective forest legislation, policy and governance (EFF)

clear legal framework (rights & management regulations) in placeLaws partlyImplemented minimum enforcement &implementation capacity

Tenure and rights unclear/contested unresolved contradictions informal & customary lawinadequate laws & policies, or ineffective

Sound legal for. framework Effective implementation & enforcementCapacity-building effortsCompliance with law Awareness and effective use of rightsLow corruption

Two or more indicatorsPresent = 1Zero or one indicatorPresent = 0

Already initiated policy change (CHA)

Existing policy strategies on CC, defor., low-carbon development, PES schemes independently from REDD policies

No advanced strategies on CC, deforestation or a low=carbonExisting policies insufficient or not implemented at all; no PES schemes

Evidence of implementation of policy strategies in related fields (e.g. one ormore of the following: NAMA, PES,deforestation, low-carbon development)

Present = 1Absent = 0

16


Proximate conditions: OWN

Condition Presence Absence Indicators of presence

Evaluation

National ownership (OWN)

Pro-REDD+ mediastatements by gov.National actors dominate p olicy discourse Nat. pol. Inst. engag in REDD+policy formulation.Donor agendas do notdominate the process.Adequatebudget allocation toREDD+.

Anti-REDD+ mediastatements by state actors and/orpro-REDD+ statementsby int. actorsdominate policydiscourse.Policy formulation carried out byforeign actors.Financial incentivesAre main reason for REDD+ implementation.There is no budgetallocation to REDD+.

• Regular pro-REDD+ statements bygov. in media• REDD+ policy formulation led by nat. pol. institutions• Donors have only advisory role inREDD+

All three indicatorspresent = 1Fewer than threeindicators present= 0

17


Proximate conditions: INCL


Evaluation

Inclusiveness of the policy process (INCL)

Key stakeholders including civil society,private sector andindigenous people (ifapplicable) participateor are at least consultedduring the REDD+process.There are formalparticipationor consultationmechanisms, andthe views expressedby stakeholders areconsidered in REDD+policy documents.

There are no formalmechanisms forparticipation by orconsultation with keystakeholders, civilsociety, indigenouspeople and the privatesector, or existingmechanisms are notapplied.Stakeholders’ viewsare not representedin REDD+ policydocuments.

• Key stakeholders (CSOs, privatesector) participateIn REDD+ process.• participationmechanisms are present.• views from consultations included in REDD+ policy docs.• There is knowledge about REDD+ at thelocal level.

Two or moreindicators present,including one of thelast two indicators= 1Zero or one indicatorpresent, or neitherof the last twoindicators = 0

18


Proximate conditions: COAL


Evaluation

Transformational coalitions (COAL)

Coalitions of drivers ofchange exist and haveroom to maneuver inthe political structuresand affect thediscourse.Policy actors andcoalitions callingfor transformationalchange are moreprominent in the mediathan those supportingthe status quo.

There are noobservable coalitionsof drivers of change, orthose that exist are toomarginal to influencepolicy-making andare not visible in thepolitical discourse onREDD+.Media and policycircles are dominatedby coalitionssupporting the statusquo.

• some degree of coalition building among actors supportingREDD+ • Drivers of change inside and outside government institutions.• coalitions forchange more prominent than status quo coalitions• Pro-REDD+ actors good access to decision-makers

Two or moreindicators present,including the firstindicator = 1Zero or one indicatorpresent or firstindicator absent = 0

19

comparing progress in national redd+ policy processes

Education