This presentation was delivered at the third Asia-Pacific Forestry Week 2016, in Clark Freeport Zone, Philippines. The five sub-thematic streams at APFW 2016 included: Pathways to prosperity: Future trade and markets Tackling climate change: challenges and opportunities Serving society: forestry and people New institutions, new governance Our green future: green investment and growing our natural assets

1. Policy Network Study:
exploring the dynamics of REDD+ actor
strings in Indonesia
Moira Moeliono, Efrian Muharrom, Bimo Dwi Satrio, Cynthia Maharani, and Maria
Brockhaus
Asia Pacific Forestry Week, 22-26 February 2016, Clark, Philippines

2. REDD+ in Indonesia
Policy development

3. THINKING beyond the canopy
2010 2011 20122008 2013 2014
REDD+ in Indonesia
Institutional evolution
2015
DNPI
REDD+ Task
Force I
REDD+ Task
Force II
REDD+ Task
Force III
REDD+
Agency
Min of
Env &
Min of
For
Presidential
election
Dismissal of
REDD+
Agency,
DNPI, UKP4
2016
“Six years into the partnership, we are now impatient to see more results on the ground,”
“We are very satisfied with the dialogue we have had [and] with the groundwork that has been put in place but I don’t think anyone can
be satisfied when we see the fires last year, when we see continued deforestation [and] when we see continued peat conversion,”
(Norwegian Climate and Environment Minister - Vidar Helgesen)

4. A network of Influence
Network Centralization (Outdegree) = 47.515 %
Network Centralization (Indegree) = 44.515 %
Network Centralization (Outdegree) = 56.528 %
Network Centralization (Indegree) = 75.167 %
Ministry of Forestry, Ministry of
Environment, National Planning Agency,
REDD+ Taskforce, the National Council for
Climate Change
MoEF, National Planning Agency,
NORAD, AMAN, CIFOR
2015
2012
Internal influence: Climate Change
Management Directorate General,
NORAD, AMAN, Forest and
Environmental Planning Directorate
General, CIFOR

5. Information Exchange
Network Centralization
(Outdegree) = 56.504 %
Network Centralization
(Indegree) = 31.507 %
2015
Network Centralization
(Outdegree) = 50.333 %
Network Centralization
(Indegree) = 52.028 %
2012
The relevance of information, as well as how it is interpreted, used, and abused,
shapes the discourse on REDD+ and influences how REDD+ unfolds (Brockhaus
and Angelsen 2012).

6. Reciprocal information exchange
Network Centralization
(Outdegree) = 26.213 %
Network Centralization
(Indegree) = 26.213 %
2015
Network Centralization
(Outdegree) = 13.722 %
Network Centralization
(Indegree) = 13.722 %
2012

7. Collaboration
Network Centralization
(Outdegree) = 20.583 %
Network Centralization
(Indegree) = 51.083 %
2012
Network Centralization
(Outdegree) = 26.665 %
Network Centralization
(Indegree) = 18.635 %
2015
Reciprocal
collaboration
Collaboration happened when actors consider others as partner, as equal. Often
an organization does not consider others as partner, but as fund receiver or etc.

8. Discussion
• Clear shift in perceived influence less centralized
• REDD+ agency disbanded, influence of MoF dispersed
• New issues emerging from REDD+: fire and haze:
prominence of IPB; forest tenure: AMAN; Forest
Management Units and the Planning Agency
• Bigger role of private sector (higher degree in all
networks): zero deforestation pledges, green
development, (CSR)

9. Conclusions
 Changes in bureaucracy has led to shifts in influence within the
REDD+ policy arena
 Brokers have become less significant  direct access to
government  but whether influential remains questionable
 Coalition  rhetorical and might not be collaboration
 Yet REDD+ has become accepted as an important tool in all the
issues and by most actors
 REDD+ processes raised awareness and improved understanding
on forest and climate issues, but not yet sufficient to drive
significant reforms.
 Issues related to REDD+ have become prominent: fire and haze,
issue of forest tenure, and the establishment of Forest
Management Units
 Driver of deforestation and forest degradation no yet tackled.

10. Thank You