Policy network analysis- Update and Introduction -

April 2014, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso

• Analysis underway in 8 countries (Brazil, Cameroon, Indonesia, Nepal, Peru, Papua New Guinea, Tanzania, Vietnam, >1000 interviews hours)

• Assesses relational and structural aspects of actors and the REDD arena and considers implications for the 3E+ content of REDD strategies.

REDD+ Policy Network Analysis (PNA)

Examines questions including:Who is involved in national REDD policy making?What are their perceptions, interests, and power relations?What are their networks of information and finance?Who cooperates/conflicts

REDD+ Policy Network Analysis (PNA)

THINKING beyond the canopy

PNA – why, how, so what..

Policy networks structure in which actors negotiate and try to influence policy processes, outputs and outcomes

Gaining importance to analyse complex environmental policy problems (Bodin and Crona, COMPON, Brulle etc all special issues)

what can we see with a policy network lens in countries’ policy arenas that hinders or enables an effective, efficient and equitable design and implementation of REDD+

4

THINKING beyond the canopy

Presence and influence of four advocacy coalitions: Two promoting business as usual (BAU) and two advocating transformational change.

Although the transformational change coalitions are less powerful than the BAU coalitions, the former includes the organisation perceived to be most influential in the REDD+ policy arena within the country.

Papua New Guinea (PNG)

Babon, A et al. 2013. Advocacy coalitions, REDD+, and forest governance in Papua New Guinea: How likely is transformational change? (under review in Ecology & Society)

Drawing on the Advocacy Coalition Framework, we examine potential pathways to transformation change: members of different coalitions forming ‘coalitions of convenience’ that can enhance policy learning and may lead to changes in beliefs about how forests should be used and managed. Organisations may defect from one coalition to another, bringing their power and resources together.

CameroonInformation flow in REDD+ policy arena

Betweenness refers to the extent to which other actors lies on the shortest distance between pairs of actors in the network, indicating a favorable position of a specific actor in facilitating and controlling communication flows and high scores indicate a position of brokerage.

Dkamela, G.P. et al. 2013. Lessons for REDD+ from Cameroon’s past forestry law reform: a political economy analysis. (under review in Ecology & Society)

IUCNMINFOF

WWF International actors are central in controlling and facilitating information flow across organisations, while civil society organizations are peripheral to the network. This lack of participation indicates that national ownership of the REDD+ process is very limited.

TanzaniaPolicy positions and REDD+ discourse coalitions

”All REDD+ accounting and

rewards should go through

the national government.”

”REDD+ schemes

should only be

financed through

funds”.

Protest event participants

Coalition for nested REDD+ rewards

Coalition for centralized REDD+

rewards

Agreement = solid line;

Disagreement = dashed line.

The size of a node represents

the influence of the actor

(normalized in-degree

centrality of influence data).

Rantala, S. and Di Gregorio, M. 2013. Multistakeholder environmental governance in action: REDD+ discourse coalitions in Tanzania. (under review in Ecology & Society)

We demonstrate how different actors have varying positions relating to polarizing statements on REDD+ financial flows and related discourse coalitions in Tanzania. Organizations outside of the coalition boundaries as indicated in the figure were considered neutral.

VietnamActor’s involvement in REDD+ decision making

Pham, T.T. et al. 2013. The REDD+ Policy arena in Vietnam: participation of policy actors. (under review in Ecology & Society)

All actors had some involvement in at least one of the three main REDD+ policy discussions, suggesting that the interests of different groups were presented and participation was good. However, only a sub-set of actors indicated that they were actively engaged in the REDD+ decision-making processes, with many important actors excluded.

KEY:ORGANIZATIONTYPES

Government

CivilSocietyOrganizationsBusinessAssociations

Education/Research

InternationalNGOsMultilateral/BilateralDonors

REDD Cell

DNPWCWWF

RECOFTC

FECOFUN

NEFIN

NFA

DFID

DoF

WWF

degree centrality & core/periphery status, n=34

NepalCollaboration Framework

Bushley, B. 2013. REDD+ policymaking in Nepal: Toward state-centric, polycentric, or market-oriented forest governance? (under review in Ecology & Society)

The extent of collaboration influences the degree to which organizations are informed about, are engaged in, and can have direct input into REDD+ policy debates and issues.

Our research shows the extent of collaboration between actors and highlights those who collaborate most frequently. All other actors, including many CSOs, government actors outside the forestry sector, and all actors from the private and educational/research sector, are found in the periphery. The marginalization of these important sectors and stakeholders may limit both, equity and effectiveness ,of future REDD+ implementation.

Exchange of information very limited, actors of same types mainly speak together, no ‘real’ exchange

WHY?

•Organizations are not aware of each other?

•Some are not seen as important?

•Respect???4 distinct clusters

Homophily strong in national government clusterOnly one bridge

IndonesiaFragmentation in Information exchange network

Moeliono, M. et al. 2013. Information Networks and Power: Confronting the ‘wicked problem’ of REDD+ in Indonesia. (under review in Ecology & Society).

Central Kalimantan, Indonesia Inter-organisational Collaboration

This network shows all reported linkages (ie information sharing, scientific information provision and resource exchanges between organizations in the province. The policy at the Governor’s Office is referred as the “Single Commander” for REDD+ in the province. While the government has close ties with several organizations based abroad (A), organizations based in Central Kalimantan (K) seem more peripheral. Notably, Indonesian NGOs are mostly found in a cluster on the left-hand side of the network. More recently, one of these organizations, AMAN, has become increasingly influential due to its expertise in traditional land tenure issues.

Gallemore, C. et al. 2013. Beyond the “Single Commander”? Cross-Scale Deliberation in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia,” (under review in Ecology & Society)

Our survey suggests that while connections with actors from abroad were relatively strong at the time of the research, connections with diverse parts of the province were less so. This reportedly seems to have been changing through the efforts of environmental NGOs based in the province.

The triangles represent the main actors in the network, those with the highest in-degree centrality values.

Brazil Collaboration Network

Gebara, M.F. et al. 2013. Networks, actors and power: A case study of REDD+ in Brazil. (under review in Ecology & Society).

We show the importance of intermediary organizations, that can bridge different networks parts and are brokers – we also demonstrate how the private sector and many government actors are outsiders.

CIFOR

Min. Envt

FAOIIAP

PeruScientific Information Network

A dense network with different actors (national research institutes, international organisations, governments, national and international NGOs) are sources of REDD+ information. The most important players constitute one national research institute, Ministry of Environment, FAO (tied with MINAM) and CIFOR.

Menton, M. et al. 2013. Policy networks in Peru. Unpublished project report.

The results from the analysis of scientific information exchange allow a snapshot of who is being consulted and trusted to provide evidence over contested issues. It also represents a way to evaluate the impact of organizations carrying out research relevant to REDD+.

THINKING beyond the canopy

Comparative PNA: Power structures

15

THINKING beyond the canopy

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 Liverman2011). Hypothesis: In such circumstances, a mix of conflict and cooperation facilitates policy change and progress

16

THINKING beyond the canopy

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)

17

THINKING beyond the canopy

Outlook

Repeated over time, this method can assess, forexample,- dynamics in power relations,

- the who is in and out, who takes part, who is no longer part,

- which actors and actor coalitions can realize their interests inparticular policy events, etc..

Deeper insights in REDD+ performance - policyoutcomes - (carbon trajectories, livelihoodschanges, other co-benefits, non-carbon benefits)will allow us to assess policy effectiveness

Acknowledgements

This work is part of the policy component of CIFOR’s global comparative study on REDD (GCS). The methods and guidelines used in this research component were designed by Maria Brockhaus, Monica Di Gregorio and Sheila Wertz-Kanounnikoff. Parts of the methodology are adapted from the research protocol for media and network analysis designed by COMPON (‘Comparing Climate Change Policy Networks’).

Case leaders: Thuy Thu Pham (Nepal), Thuy Thu Pham & Moira Moeliono (Vietnam), Thuy Thu Pham and Guillaume Lestrelin (Laos), Daju Resosudarmo & Moira Moeliono (Indonesia), Andrea Babon (PNG), Peter Cronkleton, Kaisa Korhonen-Kurki, Pablo Pacheco (Bolivia), Mary Menton (Peru), Sven Wunder & Peter May (Brazil), Samuel Assembe & Jolien Schure (Cameroon), Samuel Assembe (DRC), Salla Rantala (Tanzania), Sheila Wertz-Kanounnikoff (Mozambique), Suwadu Sakho-Jimbira & Houria Djoudi (Burkina Faso), Arild Angelsen (Norway). Special thanks to our national partners from REDES, CEDLA, Libelula and DAR, REPOA, UEM, CODELT,ICEL, ForestAction, CIEM, CERDA, Son La FD, UPNG, NRI-PNG, and UMB.

Thanks to contributors to case studies, analysis and review : Levania Santoso, Tim Cronin, Giorgio Indrarto, Prayekti Murharjanti, Josi Khatarina, Irvan Pulungan, Feby Ivalerina, Justitia Rahman, Muhar Nala Prana, Caleb Gallemore (Indonesia), Nguyen Thi Hien, Nguyen Huu Tho, Vu Thi Hien, Bui Thi Minh Nguyet, Nguyen Tuan Viet and Huynh Thu Ba (Vietnam), Dil Badhur, Rahul Karki, Bryan Bushley, Naya Paudel (Nepal), Daniel McIntyre, Gae Gowae, Nidatha Martin, Nalau Bingeding, Ronald Sofe, Abel Simon (PNG), Walter Arteaga, Bernado Peredo, Jesinka Pastor (Bolivia), Maria Fernanda Gebara, Brent Millikan, Bruno Calixto, Shaozeng Zhang (Brazil), Hugo Piu, Javier Perla, Daniela Freundt, Eduardo Burga Barrantes, Talía Postigo Takahashi (Peru), Guy Patrice Dkamela, Felicien Kengoum (Cameroon), Felicien Kabamba, Augustin Mpoyi, Angelique Mbelu (DRC), Demetrius Kweka, Therese Dokken, Rehema Tukai, George Jambiya, Riziki Shemdoe, (Tanzania), Almeida Sitoe, Alda Salomão (Mozambique), Mathurin Zida, Michael Balinga (Burkina Faso), Laila Borge (Norway).

Special thanks to Efrian Muharrom, Sofi Mardiah, Christine Wairata, Ria Widjaja-Adhi, Cecilia Luttrell, Frances Seymour, Lou Verchot, Markku Kanninen, Elena Petkova, Arild Angelsen, Jan Boerner, Anne Larson, Martin Herold, Rachel Carmenta, Juniarta Tjajadi, Cynthia Maharani