1. Colas Chervier*, Julia Naime, Malte Ladewig, Arild Angelsen
* colas.chervier@cirad.fr
Global typology of policies to reduce
deforestation

2. https://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/WPapers/CIFOR-ICRAF-WP-9.pdf

3. Rationale
• A typology as a contribution to the context-policy matrix
• Large diversity of policies & scattered evidence and measures  lots of NA if we don’t work
with types
• Commonalities in the way P&M intend to bring about change  possible to identify types.
Types of policies and measures
P1 P2 P3
Context
archetypes
A1
A2
A3

4. Gap and objective
• Previous typologies and classification: not
encompassing enough, predefined types (top-
down), unclear and hardly reproductible
classification methods
 Objective: to define an encompassing typology
of public policies based on a method that is bottom-
up, reproductible and systematic (using criteria
derived from the theories of change of policies).

5. Element 1: The universe of forest policies and measures considered
• Our “universe” is meant to be:
• Not too narrow (missing policies
and measures that influence
deforestation)
• Not too broad (the link with
deforestation reduction has to be
relatively direct)
• We have identified 35 policies and
interventions based on literature
review….but this list is not exhaustive!
Inclusion criteria

6. Element 2: A generic theory of change of forest policies and measure
Forest policies and measures
implemented (transfer of
material incentives or
information)
Change in
behavior of
targeted
stakeholder(s)
Deforestation and
forest degradation
reduced
Psychological
mechanism
activated/triggered
Cause of
deforestation
mitigated
Inputs Outputs
Short-term
intermediary
outcomes
Long-term
intermediary
outcomes
Impacts
Theory-based typology: we intend to classify policies and measures according to the way they are
supposed to bring about change (assuming that if the theory of change is comparable, it will be
effective in contexts that are similar)

7. Element 3: attributes and sub-attributes characterizing forest policies and measures
Attributes
Change in behavior of targeted
stakeholder(s)
Psychological mechanism activated Cause of deforestation mitigated
Psychological mechanism activated by
forest policies and measures
Actors targeted by forest
policies and measures
Causes of deforestation mitigated
by forest policies and measures
Theory of
change
Maximization of material payoffs
Compliance/ Obedience
Social belongingness satisfaction
Competence/ self-efficacy
Sub-attributes
Producers
Supply chain actors
Consumers
Governments and public actors
Finance actors and investors
Low adoption forest-friendly
activities and practices
Expansion of forest-degrading
activities
Weak governance
Inadequate human development
conditions
Inadequate demand for forest-
related commodities

8. Classification
Attributes Psychological mechanism activated
by forest policies and measures
Actors targeted by forest
policies and measures
Causes of deforestation mitigated
by forest policies and measures
PES Maximization of material payoffs Producers
Low adoption forest-friendly
activities and practices
Formalizing
tenure
Ignore
infrastructure
development
Producers
Producers
Competence/ self-efficacy
Expansion of forest-degrading
activities
Low adoption forest-friendly
activities and practices
Competence/ self-efficacy
 Identification of dominant sub-attributes for each policy/measure

9. First results (1/2)
• Cluster analysis
• Different levels of
aggregation possible:
• 10 middle-level types
(orange line) with at least
two common sub-
attributes.
3 4 1 2 5 6
7
8
9
10
Cluster analysis for categorical variables

10. First results (2/2)
Type 1 = producers + material payoffs (e.g. PES)
Type 2 = producers + compliance/ obedience (e.g. PA)
Type 3 = producers + broader development conditions + psychological mechanism other than material payoffs and
obedience (family planning campaigns)
Type 4 = producers + improving forest values and benefits + psychological mechanisms other than material payoffs and
obedience (e.g. logging concessions)
Type 5 = Increasing linkages between multiple stakeholders to improve governance (e.g. MSP)
Type 6 = government actors + aimed at improving governance (e.g. EFT)
Type 7 = End-consumers + demand (e.g. consumer awareness campaigns)
Type 8 = intermediate supply-chain actors + demand (e.g. disclosure)
Type 9 = increasing values of forests and the benefits of forest-friendly activities + material payoffs + broader range of
supply-chain actors (e.g. subsidies)
Type 10 reduce the benefits of forest-degrading activities + material payoffs + broader range of supply-chain actors (e.g.
reduction of credit access)

11. Next steps

12. Improving the typology based on feedback from GCS REDD+
target countries
In each GCS REDD+ target country
 Does the classification method make sense, including
in particular the list of attributes and sub-attributes?
 Do we forget any policy and measure that influence
forest fate in Indonesia?
 Does the current classification in 10 types makes
sense in the Indonesian context?

13. cifor.org | worldagroforestry.org | globallandscapesforum.org | resilientlandscapes.org
The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and World Agroforestry (ICRAF) envision a more equitable world where forestry and
landscapes enhance the environment and well-being for all. CIFOR–ICRAF are CGIAR Research Centers.
cifor.org/gcs
Thank
you