A comparative analysis of national REDD+ policy  networks: Conflicts and cooperation as drivers                for policy ...
Introduction Policy Network Analysis provides a way to analyse political    systems, focusing on the relational and posit...
Comparative Analysis of National    REDD+ Policy Networks:             Research Question How do power structures (policy ...
Conceptual Framework        Typology of Power Structures              Type of    Conflict/Competition       Cooperation   ...
Mixed Methods Expert Panel to identify network boundaries Social Organization Survey   • Informant: high representative,...
Network Questions Influence network – reputation power  Which organizations stand out as especially influential in  affec...
Distribution of power Network of influence  network centralization as the  indicator for concentration of power  The cen...
Preliminary results: Distribution of    power in REDD+ policy domains                    Indonesia Vietnam   Nepal    Tanz...
Conflict and Cooperation Analysis of conflict and collaboration networks   patterns of interactions  identification blo...
Brazil Collaboration Network                    THINKING beyond the canopy
Brazil Collaboration Network                    THINKING beyond the canopy
Insights from early results        Collaboration networksBrazil cooperation (56)   Indonesia cooperation (64)Brazil confli...
Typology of power structures                     Type of  Conflict/Competition   Forms of Cooperation                 inte...
Conclusion Different power structures affect REDD+ policy  progress in different ways:Helps to identify political constr...
Conclusion (2) Power structures in REDD+ policy arenas do not  mirror the type of political regimeFragmentation of power...
AcknowledgementsThis work is part of the policy component of CIFOR’s global comparative study on REDD (GCS). The methods a...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

A comparative analysis of national REDD+ policy networks: conflicts and cooperation as drivers for policy making

1,415 views

Published on

Using a comparative policy network approach, this presentation investigates and compares networking among policy actors in the REDD+ policy domain in six countries. The aim is to find out how policy network structures and coalitions of interests impact national REDD+ policy outcomes. The research presented here may be useful to countries who are now negotiating and designing their national REDD+ mechanisms and policies.

Monica Di Gregorio gave this presentation on 18 June 2012 at a panel discussion organised by CIFOR and partners at the ISEE 2012 Conference at Rio, which convened under the topic "Ecological Economics and Rio+20: Challenges and Contributions for a Green Economy". The panel was titled ‘National strategies for reducing emissions from avoided deforestation and degradation – how much transformational change is possible in current political and economic realities? Part II – A policy network perspective’. For more information, visit http://www.cifor.org/rio20/

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,415
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
20
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
96
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

A comparative analysis of national REDD+ policy networks: conflicts and cooperation as drivers for policy making

  1. 1. A comparative analysis of national REDD+ policy networks: Conflicts and cooperation as drivers for policy making Maria Brockhaus and Monica Di Gregorio ISEE, Rio de Janeiro, 18th June 2012THINKING beyond the canopy
  2. 2. Introduction Policy Network Analysis provides a way to analyse political systems, focusing on the relational and positional aspects of policy processes Allows to analyse the structural constraints and opportunities for policy change Allows to analyse power relations within the policy process through identification of different roles and levels of influence of actors within networks Investigates the inner mechanisms of coalition building which is the basic process by which policy learning and policy change occurs Allows to develop policy recommendations which take into account the structural constraints and opportunities for effective policy making THINKING beyond the canopy
  3. 3. Comparative Analysis of National REDD+ Policy Networks: Research Question How do power structures (policy network structures) affect progress of national REDD+ decision making processes?Analytical focus in this paper currently on progress because REDD+ policy outcomes are not yet measurable Hypothesis: A relatively low level of concentration of power and a high level of cooperation lead to progress in REDD+ decision making THINKING beyond the canopy
  4. 4. Conceptual Framework Typology of Power Structures Type of  Conflict/Competition Cooperation interactionDistribution of power Fragmentation  Challenge Cooperation Concentration Dominance Consultation Adapted from Kriesi, Adam & Jochum 2006 THINKING beyond the canopy
  5. 5. Mixed Methods Expert Panel to identify network boundaries Social Organization Survey • Informant: high representative, knowledgable person about national REDD+ policy processes • 7 questions on relational ties (interactions) among policy actors Actors in-depth Interviews • Question guide for semi-structured interviews • Questions aimed at capturing positions of organizations in national REDD+ policy domain Social network analysis & qualitative analysis THINKING beyond the canopy
  6. 6. Network Questions Influence network – reputation power Which organizations stand out as especially influential in affecting the REDD+ policies? Cooperation network (informal coalitions) With which other organizations does your organization collaborate on a regular basis on REDD+ related issues? Conflict network With which organizations does your organization often find itself disagreeing on REDD+ policy issues? THINKING beyond the canopy
  7. 7. Distribution of power Network of influence  network centralization as the indicator for concentration of power The centralization of a network is a measure of how central its most central policy actor is in relation to how central all the other policy actors are.` “Centralization measures … (a) calculate the sum in differences in centrality between the most central node in a network and all other nodes; and (b) divide this quantity by the theoretically largest such sum of differences in any network of the same degree” (Freeman 1979) THINKING beyond the canopy
  8. 8. Preliminary results: Distribution of power in REDD+ policy domains Indonesia Vietnam Nepal Tanzania Brazil CameroonSt dev indegrees: 11.0 8.6 8.4 11.1 9.3 6.9St dev normindegree 17.4 16.9 25.4 17.7 17.0 10.9Networkcentralization(%) 75.6 72.5 58.4 52.0 45.8 32.3Observations (noof nodes) 64 52 34 64 56 64 THINKING beyond the canopy
  9. 9. Conflict and Cooperation Analysis of conflict and collaboration networks  patterns of interactions  identification blocks of policy actors that are structural equivalent (4 blocks per country) “Two nodes are said to be exactly structurally equivalent if they have the same relationships to all other nodes.” Because exact structural equivalence is likely to be rare (particularly in large networks), we focus on examining the degree of structural equivalence, rather than the simple presence or absence of exact equivalence.” Are interactions predominantly conflictual or cooperative? THINKING beyond the canopy
  10. 10. Brazil Collaboration Network THINKING beyond the canopy
  11. 11. Brazil Collaboration Network THINKING beyond the canopy
  12. 12. Insights from early results Collaboration networksBrazil cooperation (56) Indonesia cooperation (64)Brazil conflict Indonesia conflict THINKING beyond the canopy
  13. 13. Typology of power structures Type of  Conflict/Competition Forms of Cooperation interaction Distribution  of power Fragmentation Challenge Cooperation Cameroon Brazil Nepal  Tanzania Concentration Dominance Consultation Vietnam Indonesia THINKING beyond the canopy
  14. 14. Conclusion Different power structures affect REDD+ policy progress in different ways:Helps to identify political constraints and opportunities to effective REDD+ policy developmentAffect progress of REDD+ decision making, participation, type of strategies (contention/cooperation) needed to achieve effective REDD+ policy outcomes THINKING beyond the canopy
  15. 15. Conclusion (2) Power structures in REDD+ policy arenas do not mirror the type of political regimeFragmentation of power produces inclusive policy domains but difficult to coordinateConcentration of power provides speedy political decisions, but lacks inclusivenessDifferent power structures require different degrees of cooperation and contention to move from business as usual to effective REDD+ policy progress THINKING beyond the canopy
  16. 16. AcknowledgementsThis 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), Daju Resosudarmo & Moira Moeliono (Indonesia), Andrea Babon (PNG), Peter Cronkleton (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 (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 (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), Rehema Tukai, George Jambiya, Riziki Shemdoe, Demetrius Kweka, Therese Dokken (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, Markku Kanninen, Elena Petkova, Arild Angelsen, Jan Boerner, Anne Larson, Martin Herold, and Pablo Pacheco. We gratefully acknowledge the support received from the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation,  the Australian Agency for International Development, the European Commission,  and the UK Department for International Development. THINKING beyond the canopy

×