Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

An introduction to CIFOR's global comparative study on REDD+ (GCS-REDD+)

469 views

Published on

Presented by Maria Brockhaus at a workshop on 'Sharing insights across REDD+ countries: Opportunities and obstacles for effective, efficient, and equitable carbon and non-carbon results' from 21-23 February 2017 in Naypyidaw, Myanmar.

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

An introduction to CIFOR's global comparative study on REDD+ (GCS-REDD+)

  1. 1. An introduction to CIFOR’s global comparative study on REDD+ (GCS-REDD+) Maria Brockhaus Myanmar – February 2017
  2. 2. Challenges in national REDD+ Among others ...  Coordination across sectors and administrative levels (in decentralized systems)  Tenure, financing systems, benefit sharing and participation  MRV systems and capacity  Scope, scale, permanence, leakage  Sovereignty and ownership over process and reform(s)  Capacity and political will to address the drivers of forest carbon change (driven oftentimes by interests of powerful elites), access/availibility to data on sectorial contributions to DD, and identifying an effective policy mix  needs more than single sectors and single research disciplines
  3. 3. THINKING beyond the canopy CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study (GCS-REDD+) 2009-2020 • To support REDD+ policy arenas and practitioner communities with - information - analysis - tools • so as to ensure 3E+ outcomes: - effectiveness - efficiency - equity and co-benefits
  4. 4. M1: political science, macro economics; political economy approach M2: socio-economics; counterfactual approach to impact assessment M3: biophysics, natural science; identifying methods and approaches to MRV M4: combining governance and human geography; landscape (jurisdictional) approach M5: innovative knowledge sharing as central project design element
  5. 5. THINKING beyond the canopy CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study (GCS-REDD+) new research countries phase III: Myanmar, Guyana
  6. 6. GCS theory of change: Transformational change versus business-as-usual Transformational change: ‘a shift in discourse, attitudes, power relations, and deliberate policy and protest action that leads policy formulation and implementation away from business as usual policy approaches that directly or indirectly support deforestation and forest degradation’ (Brockhaus and Angelsen, 2012; Di Gregorio et al, 2012 in ‘Analysing REDD+’)
  7. 7. Examples of transformational change In the context of REDD+, transformational outcomes can be i) changes in economic, regulatory and governance frameworks, including the devolution of rights to local users; ii) removals of perverse incentives, such as subsidies and concessions that serve selective economic interests and stimulate deforestation and forest degradation; and iii) reforms of forest industry policies and regulations that effectively reduce unsustainable extraction
  8. 8. Seeing REDD+ through 4I’s: institutions, interests, ideas, information (Brockhaus and Angelsen 2012)
  9. 9. THINKING beyond the canopy How do the 4 Is hinder or enable change (1)  Institutional stickiness: Formal power typically rests with the ‘stickiest’ organisations – those with enough influence to resist change – while new institutions and actors are ignored or remain isolated (e.g. colonial rules, Ministries responsible for natural resources)  Interests: State’s interest in social and economic welfare can fall short if lack of autonomy from interests that drive deforestation and degradation (e.g. rent seeking, fraud, collusion and corruption practices inside the bureaucratic system)
  10. 10. THINKING beyond the canopy How do the 4 Is hinder or enable change (2)  Ideas: discourse affects policy making, they frame the problem and present a limited set of choices of what is ‘reasonable’ or what is put forward as ‘the possible’ (e.g. REDD+ benefits for those who contribute to efficiency and effectiveness, versus benefits for those who have moral rights based on equity considerations)  Information: Facts, rather than speaking for themselves, are selected, interpreted, and put in context in ways that reflect the interests of the information provider (e.g. reference level setting)
  11. 11. THINKING beyond the canopy Research for CHANGE – from where, towards where, and why? what enables , what hinders, how to measure power and politics discourses/ beliefs/ logics/ perceptions incentives behaviour/LUC International National Local Multilevel/multiscale Decision making State/Private/CSO (policies, MRV, gender, adaptation, FPIC, etc) Economic instruments and arrangements Benefit sharing, PES, 0- Def, etc Framing of policy problems (and solutions) REDD+, resilience and adaptation, 0-def, sustainability commitments, etc
  12. 12. GCS policy component in detail
  13. 13. Approach: investigating politico-economic constraints to effective national REDD+ strategies (Brockhaus, M., and M. Di Gregorio. 2012. A brief overview: Component 1 on national REDD+ policies and processes. CIFOR)  Institutional Context and Path-Dependencies (country context studies) (Brockhaus, M., M. Di Gregorio and S. Wertz-Kanounnikoff. 2012. Guide for country profiles: Global Comparative Study on REDD (GCS-REDD))  Ideology, Policy Discourses and Coalitions for Change (media and actor stance analysis) (Di Gregorio, M., Price, S., Saunders, C. and Brockhaus, M. 2012. Code book for the analysis of media frames in articles on REDD. CIFOR)  Policy Network Structures: Constraints and Opportunities for effective policy design (policy network analysis) (see special issue in Ecology and Society 2014)  REDD+ policy process assessment (e.g. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)) (Korhonen-Kurkin et al. 2014, Sehring et al. 2013, Brockhaus et al. 2015, 2016)
  14. 14. Comparative Analysis (Combined Country Cases) Why: to identify enabling conditions, progress with REDD+ transformational change, inform safeguards and other emerging processes, and to assess REDD+ policy impact How: comparative analysis of individual research elements (country profiles, media analyses, etc), and full country cases, qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) , analysis of data from other modules or global datasets ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Toolboxes (e.g. to empower civil society actors to hold state and private sector accountable) Engagement, Capacity building across and within countries (to strengthen impact pathways through knowledge uptake) Country case studies Cross-country comparative analysis Country profile Why: To reveal contextual conditions (drivers of deforestation, institutions, political economy, REDD architecture as discussed) How: literature review, expert interviews Discourse Analysis  Why: To determine what kinds of actors are shaping public debate and influencing the policy process. How: media-based analysis, stance analysis REDD+ Policy Content Analysis Why: To identify and analyse policies and measures and to monitor change over time How: Policy content analysis , regular updates of policy monitoring table Policy Network Analysis Why: To analyse actors, their relations and the structural conditions in the policy arena (Actors, Perception, Power, Position) How: surveys and in-depth interviews FlexibleElement:SpecificPolicyStudiestocaptureemerging orcountryspecificissuesandquestions,focusonpolitical economystudies National REDD+ Strategy Assessment (Full Country Case Analysis) Why: To assess proposed policies and measures, to identify obstacles and opportunities to realise REDD+ and secure 3E outcomes + co-benefits, to provide policy recommendations for improved domestic policy design and implementation How: Policy context and content analysis of existing REDD national strategies (Actors, Mechanisms, Structures)
  15. 15. REDD+ policy context *country profiles from 13 countries *specific policy studies Kambire, H., Djenontin, I., Kabore, A., Djoudi, H., Balinga, M., Zida, M., Assembe-Mvondo, S., Brockhaus, M. The Context of REDD+ and adaptation to climate change in Burkina Faso: Drivers, agents and institutions. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia. (2016) Kweka D, Carmenta R, Hyle M, Mustalahti I, Dokken T and Brockhaus M. The context of REDD+ in Tanzania: Drivers, agents and institutions. Occasional Paper 133. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR. (2015) Bekele M, Tesfaye Y, Mohammed Z, Zewdie S, Tebikew Y, Brockhaus M, et al. The context of REDD+ in Ethiopia: Drivers, agents and institutions. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). (2015). Lestrelin G, Trockenbrodt M, Phanvilay K, Thongmanivong S, Vongvisouk T, Pham TT and Castella J-C. 2013. The context of REDD+ in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic: Drivers, agents and institutions. Occasional Paper 92. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Mpoyi, A.M., Nyamwoga, F.B., Kabamba, F.M. et S. Assembe-Mvondo, S. 2013. Le contexte de la REDD+ en RD Congo: Causes, agents et institutions. Document Occasionnel 84. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonésie. Che Piu, H. and M. Menton. 2013. Contexto de REDD+ en Perú: Motores, actores e instituciones. Documentos Ocasionales 90. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Piu, H.C., García, T., Enrique, C., Martinez, J., Menton, M. Contexto de REDD+ en Perú Drivers, actores e instituciones. In press. Babon, A., Gowae, G.Y. 2013. The Context of REDD+ in Papua New Guinea: Drivers, agents and institutions. In press. Paudel, N. S., Khatri, D. B., Khanal, D. R., Karki, R. 2013. The context of REDD+ in Nepal: Drivers, agents, and institutions. Occasional Paper 81. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Mpoyi, A.M., Nyamwoga, F.B., Kabamba, F.M. et Assembe-Mvondo, S. 2013. Le contexte de la REDD+ en RD Congo: Causes, agents et institutions. Document Occasionnel 84. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonésie. Sitoe, A., Salomão, A., & Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S. 2012. The context of REDD+ in Mozambique: Drivers, agents, and institutions. Occasional paper 79. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Indrarto, G. B., Murharjanti, P., Khatarina, J., Pulungan, I., Ivalerina, F., Rahman, J., Prana, M. N., Resosudarmo, I. A. P., Muharrom, E. 2012. The context of REDD+ in Indonesia. Working Paper 92. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Pham, T. T., Moeliono, M., Nguyen, T. H., Nguyen, H. T., Vu, T. H. 2012. The context of REDD+ in Vietnam: Drivers, agents and institutions. Occasional paper 75. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Dkamela, G.P. 2011. The context of REDD+ in Cameroon: drivers, agents, and institutions. Occasional paper 57. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. May, P.H., Millikan, B. 2010. The context of REDD+ in Brazil: drivers, agents, and institutions. Occasional paper 55. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
  16. 16. REDD+ and policy discourses *media-based analysis with predefined codebook in 10 countries *”REDD+ politics in the media” – working paper series • Gebara, M.F., May, P.H., Carmenta, R., Calixto, B., Brockhaus, M., Di Gregorio, M. 2017. Framing REDD+ in the Brazilian national media: how discourses evolved amid global negotiation uncertainties. Climatic Change: 1-14 • Khatri, D.B., Pham, T.T., Di Gregorio, M. et al. Climatic Change (2016) 138: 309. REDD+ politics in the media: a case from Nepal. Climatic Change 138, no. 1-2 (2016): 309-323. • Cronin T, Santoso L, Di Gregorio M, Brockhaus M, Mardiah S, Muharrom E. 2016. Moving consensus and managing expectations: media and REDD+ in Indonesia. Climatic Change. 137(1):57-70. • Babon, A., Mcintyre, D., Sofe, R. 2012. REDD+ politics in the media: a case study from Papua New Guinea. Working Paper 97. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. • Khatri, D. H., Bhushal, R. P., Paudel, N. S., Gurung, N. 2012. REDD+ politics in the media: A case study from Nepal. Working Paper 96. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. • Alvarez, J. P., Montero, D. F., Barrantes, E. B., Takahashi, T. P., Menton, M. 2012. Políticas redd+ y los medios de comunicación: Caso de estudio en el perú. Working Paper 101. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. • Kengoum, D.F. 2011. REDD+ politics in the media: a case study from Cameroon. Working Paper 51. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. • May, P.H., Calixto, B., Gebara, M.F. 2011. REDD+ politics in the media: a case study from Brazil. Working Paper 55. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. • Pham, T.T. 2011. REDD+ politics in the media: a case study from Vietnam. Working Paper 53. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. • Cronin, T. and Santoso, L. 2010. REDD+ politics in the media: A case study from Indonesia. Working Paper 49. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
  17. 17. THINKING beyond the canopy REDD+ policy networks *social network analysis in 9 countries comparative studies, journal articles, working papers: 2014 special issue in Ecology & Society with policy network analysis country cases from 7 countries as well as global comparative analysis Rantalla, S. 2012. Knowledge and brokerage in REDD+ policy making: A Policy Networks Analysis of the case of Tanzania. Working Paper. Harvard Kennedy School and CIFOR. Moeliono, M., Santoso, L., Gallemore, C., 2013. REDD+ policy networks in Indonesia. CIFOR
  18. 18. THINKING beyond the canopy Selected global comparative publications  Loft LA, Pham TT, Wong G, Brockhaus MA, Le DN, Tjajadi JS, Luttrell CE. 2016. Risks to REDD+: potential pitfalls for policy design and implementation. Environmental Conservation. 1-12.  Vijge MJ, Brockhaus M, Di Gregorio M, Muharrom E. "Framing national REDD+ benefits, monitoring, governance and finance: A comparative analysis of seven countries." Global Environmental Change 39 (2016): 57-68.  Brockhaus M., Korhonen-Kurki, K., Sehring, J., Di Gregorio, M., Assembe-Mvondo, S., Babon, A., Bekele, M., Gebara, M.F., Khatri, D.B., Kambire, H., Kengoum, F., Kweka, D., Menton, M., Moeliono, M., Paudel, N.S., Pham, T.T., Resosudarmo, I.A.P., Sitoe, A., Wunder, S., Zida, M. 2016. REDD+, transformational change and the promise of performance-based payments: A qualitative comparative analysis. Climate Policy, in press.  Korhonen-Kurki K, Brockhaus M, Bushley B, Babon A, Gebara MF, Kengoum F, et al. 2016. Coordination and cross-sectoral integration in REDD+: experiences from seven countries. Climate and Development. 8(5):458-71.  Di Gregorio, M., Brockhaus, M., Cronin, T., Muharrom, E., Mardiah, S., & Santoso, L., 2015. Deadlock or Transformational Change? Exploring Public Discourse on REDD+ across Seven Countries. Accepted in Global Environmental Politics.  Brockhaus, M., Di Gregorio, M., Mardiah, S. 2014. Governing the design of national REDD+: An analysis of the power of agency. Forest Policy and Economics 49, 23-33.  Angelsen, A. and T.K. Rudel. 2013. Designing and implementing effective REDD+ policies: A forest transition approach. Review Environmental Economics and Policy 7(1): 91-113.  Brockhaus M, Di Gregorio M and Mardiah S. 2013. Governing the design of national REDD +: An analysis of the power of agency. Forest Policy and Economics. In press.  Di Gregorio M, Brockhaus M, Cronin T, Muharrom E, Santoso L, Mardiah S and Büdenbender M. 2013. Equity and REDD+ in the media: a comparative analysis of policy discourses. Ecology and Society 18(2): 39.  Korhonen-Kurki K, Brockhaus M, Duchelle A, Atmadja S, Thu Thuy P, and Schofield L. 2013. Multiple levels and multiple challenges for measurement, reporting and verification of REDD+. International Journal of The Commons, 7(2).  Korhonen-Kurki K., Sehring J., Di Gregorio M., and Brockhaus M.; 2013. Enabling Factors for REDD+: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Climate Policy.  Larson, A.M., Brockhaus, M., Sunderlin, W.D., Duchelle, A., Babon, A., Dokken, T., Pham, T.T., Resosudarmo, I.A.P., Selaya, G., Awono, A., Huynh, T.-B., 2013. Land tenure and REDD+: The good, the bad and the ugly. Global Environmental Change 23, 678-689.  Luttrell, C., L. Loft, F. M. Gebara, D. Kweka, M. Brockhaus, A. Angelsen and W. Sunderlin 2013. Who should benefit from REDD+? Rationales and Realities. Ecology and Society. In press.  Pham TT, Brockhaus M, Wong G, Dung LN, Tjajadi JS, Loft L, Luttrell C and Assembe S. 2013. Approaches to benefit sharing: A preliminary comparative analysis of 13 REDD+ countries. Working Paper 108. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
  19. 19. Some key findings from phase 1 and 2
  20. 20. Major events in REDD+ policy arenas Brockhaus, M., Di Gregorio, M., 2014. National REDD+ policy networks: From cooperation to conflict. Ecology & Society. Forthcoming.
  21. 21. 2010 2011 2012 29 November – 10 December COP 16 in Cancun 27 May Signing of letter of Intent between Norway and Indonesia of USD 1 billion pledged, conditional and performance 20 September Presidential Decree 19/2010; REDD+ Task Force September Draft of National Strategy December Central Kalimantan selected as the pilot province for implementation of the Indonesia-Norway partnership September - Presidential Decree 25/11;task Force for development of REDD+ Agency - MoU between REDD+ Task Force and Central Kalimantan Provinces - Presidential Decree 61/2011: National plan to reduce GHG emission (RAN GRK) 28 November-9 December COP 17 in Durban January – April Continued bilateral cooperation incl. GIZ, KOICA, AUSAID and civil society participation March – April Rewriting of REDD+ national Strategy 20 May Presidential Instruction 10/2011:Moratorium on granting new forestry licenses and improvement of natural primary forest and peatland governance 30 June End of REDD+ task Force August Final Draft of REDD+ National Strategy May and November Revision 2 and 3 on Moratorium map January Extension of Indonesian REDD+ task force mandate 2013 31 August 2013 Presidential Decree 62/2013: REDD+ Agency May Central Kalimantan REDD+ Strategy 11 – 23 November COP 19 in Poland 26 November - & December COP 18 in Doha May Extension of moratorium of new forestry licenses April Court decision on Adat Act Community Forest. MK 35. March KPK and 12 Ministries Mou on Joint Implementation August Act No. 18/2013 on Deforestation Prevention and Eradication 2014 2015 21 January 2015 Presidential Decree No. 16/2015 on Ministry of Environment and Forestry: REDD+ Agency and DNPI dismissal September 2014 Governmental Regulation No. 71/2014 on Peat Ecosystem Protection and Management October 2014 REDD+ Academy was launched in Yogyakarta October 2014 merge between Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Forestry December 2014 COP 20 in Lima, Peru July 2014 Indonesia’s forest cover lost report by University of Maryland, twice from Brazil in in 2012 (840.000 ha) – Nature Climate Change Journal December 2014 AMAN submitted 4,822 M Ha of Adat Law Community Area map to the government December 2014 Minister of Environment and Forestry Regulation No. P.97/Menhut-II/2014 on Licensing and Non Licensing Authority September 2014 Law No. 23/2014 on Local Government 06 July 2012 - Government Regulation No. 60/2012 on Changes towards GR no. 10/2010 - Government Regulation No. 61/2012 on Changes towards GR no. 24/2010 June REDD+ national strategy script published: SK No.02/SATGAS REDD+/09/2012 23 February 2015 Dismissal of UKP4 based on Presidential Regulation No 26/2015: Several tasks of this institution were merged into Cabinet Secretariat and Presidential staff 24 September 2015 Submission of Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) to UNFCCC 13 May 2015 Presidential Instruction No. 8/2015 on Moratorium Extension followed by the Minister of Environmental and Forestry Decree No. 141/MENLHKVII/2015 concerning the Indicative Moratorium Map (IMM) Revision VIII 08 January 2015 Presidential Regulation No.2/2015 on Mid Term National Plan July 2014 Internal Affairs Minister Regulation No. 52/2014 on Guideline of Adat Law Community Recognition and Protection January 2014 Governmental Regulation No. 43/2014 on Village 15 January 2014 Law No. 6/2014 on Village July 2014 Presidential Election 2016 06 January 2016 Establishment of Peat Restoration Agency through Presidential Decree No. 1/2016 14 April 2016 President statement on all palm oil and mining moratorium 31 May 2016 Improve cooperation of REDD+ with Norway; Indonesia’s president statement towards Norwegian Foreign Minister 03 February 2016 Norway through its Minister of Climate and Environment expressed dissatisfaction about lack of progress of REDD+ Indonesia Brief process overview in Indonesia : key REDD+ policy events
  22. 22. 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)
  23. 23. Power of Agency (Brockhaus et al 2014 Governing the design of REDD+)  Who speaks business-as-usual, who speaks transformational change ? Frame analysis, Actor groups in the main BAU and TC discourse coalition (no. actor stances expressed in the coalition = frequency), No. of coalition actors  How powerful are these voices ?  Reputational power index 𝑅 𝑝 = 𝑖=1 𝑛 𝑝 𝑖𝑑 𝑖 𝑛 𝑝 𝑛−1  No. of coaltition group members * reputational power index, Reputational power index of discourse coalition 𝑅 𝑑 = sum of (No. of coalition group members x reputational power index)
  24. 24. Power of which agency?  State speaks BAU, often represents business interests, rights are framed around global equity issues  CSO often call for transformational change, with focus on rights issues  In most countries, BAU is much more powerful than TC  No actors speak “root causes of deforestation” …. highly problematic for REDD+ .. !!!
  25. 25. 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 cluster Only one bridge Indonesia Fragmentation in Information exchange network Moeliono, M., C. Gallemore, L. Santoso, M. Brockhaus, and M. Di Gregorio. May 2014. Information networks and power: confronting the "wicked problem" of REDD+ in Indonesia. Ecology and Society 19(2): 9.
  26. 26. THINKING beyond the canopy Measuring progress with REDD+ towards transformational change  Key findings: • Context matters: Already initiated institutional change allows for faster REDD+ design , but either forest pressure needs to be high or effective forest legislation, policy and governance in place • Actor-related factors of national ownership and transformational coalitions crucial: but could only be effective in an enabling institutional setting (Korhonen-Kurki et al. 2014. Enabling factors for establishing REDD+ in a context of weak governance. Climate Policy, 14(2), 167-186.) • BAU actor coalitions are powerful, main drivers of deforestation not yet tackled, but no REDD+ without  would need state with ‘societal welfare rationale’ to counterbalance deforestation-driving ‘profit rationale’… (Obidzinski et al. 2014. Oil palm plantation investments in Indonesia’s forest frontiers: limited economic multipliers and uncertain benefits for local communities. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-20; Salvini, G et al. (2014). How countries link REDD+ interventions to drivers in their readiness plans: implications for monitoring systems. Environmental Research Letters, 9(7), 074004.)
  27. 27. 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 Cynthia Maharani, Efrian Muharrom, Sofi Mardiah, Christine Wairata, Bimo Dwisatrio, 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,
  28. 28. We acknowledge the support from: the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad), the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), the European Union (EU), the UK Government, USAID, the International Climate Initiative (IKI) of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC) , and the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (CRP-FTA) with financial support from the CGIAR Fund. & all research partners and individuals that have contributed to the GCS research Thanks
  29. 29. 2008 2012 2009 CIFOR’s 3rd edited volume on REDD
  30. 30. Country Profiles Media-based discourse analyses Info Briefs Working Papers Journal Articles GCS analysis of policies and processes

×