Knowledge generation and dissemination in CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+

795 views

Published on

This presentation by Maria Brockhaus answers the following key questions concerning the GCS study:

What makes knowledge generation and uptake successful?
What are some of the barriers to sharing knowledge?
How well do we know what other people need to know?
What are some of the tools we can use to listen and design more effective knowledge products and pathways?

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
795
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • In the face of numerous emerging first-generation REDD+ activities – both projects and national strategies – CIFOR has started in 2009, a global comparative study on REDD+.
  • What do we do:
    4 research modules & 1 outreach module
    duration: 2009-2015
    analytical lenses: 3E+ (carbon effectiveness, cost effeciency, and equity) , and to identify obstacles and opportunities for transformational change necessary to realise a 3E REDD+ we apply the 4Is (instiutional pathdependencies, interests, ideas and ideologies, and information)
  • Where we are working :
    13 countries including Laos , which is not yet on the map
  • Examples of knowledge generated within the GCS project ………………
    Some major outputs of CIFOR’s global comparative study.
  • Method:
    Identified 66 REDD+ policy actors in PNG
    Used survey and interview data to allocate actors into ‘advocacy coalitions’ based on shared beliefs and whether advocating for business-as-usual or transformational change
    Used survey data on perceived influence to calculate reputational power of each actor and then average for each advocacy coalition
    Results:
    Identified four advocacy coalitions – 2 promting BAU and 2 promoting TC:
    ‘Status Quo’: Most powerful, promotes business-as-usual
    ‘Sustainable Development’: Moderate influence; promotes transformational change
    ‘Sustainable livelihoods’: Moderate influence; promotes transformational change
    ‘Carbon Entrepreneurs’: Low influence, promotes aspects of business-as-usual and transformational change
    So what?:
    Although the transformational change coalitions are less powerful than the BAU coalitions, the TC coalition does include the organisation perceived to be most influential in the REDD+ policy arena in PNG and includes other influential organisations
    Drawing on the Advocacy Coalition Framework, we can examine potential pathways to transformation change- these include 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 coalitions to another, bringing their power and resources, etc
  • Method:
    Identified 66 REDD+ policy actors in PNG
    Used survey and interview data to allocate actors into ‘advocacy coalitions’ based on shared beliefs and whether advocating for business-as-usual or transformational change
    Used survey data on perceived influence to calculate reputational power of each actor and then average for each advocacy coalition
    Results:
    Identified four advocacy coalitions – 2 promting BAU and 2 promoting TC:
    ‘Status Quo’: Most powerful, promotes business-as-usual
    ‘Sustainable Development’: Moderate influence; promotes transformational change
    ‘Sustainable livelihoods’: Moderate influence; promotes transformational change
    ‘Carbon Entrepreneurs’: Low influence, promotes aspects of business-as-usual and transformational change
    So what?:
    Although the transformational change coalitions are less powerful than the BAU coalitions, the TC coalition does include the organisation perceived to be most influential in the REDD+ policy arena in PNG and includes other influential organisations
    Drawing on the Advocacy Coalition Framework, we can examine potential pathways to transformation change- these include 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 coalitions to another, bringing their power and resources, etc
  • A dense network, with many different actors, are seen as a source of REDD+ relevant information and dominance by a handful of national research instates (light blue), international organizations (teal), government (pink), national environmental NGOs (dark green) and international environmental ngos (dark blue). The most important players ended up being one national research institute (#4), the Ministry of Environment (#3), FAO (tied with MINAM) and CIFOR (#1).  The results allow a snapshot of who is being consulted but also one way to evaluate the impact of the research & reporting being carried out on REDD+ by the different actors.
  • Knowledge generation and dissemination in CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+

    1. 1. Knowledge generation and dissemination in CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+ Maria Brockhaus GLF Warsaw, November 2013
    2. 2. Key questions  What makes knowledge generation and uptake  successful? What are some of the barriers to sharing knowledge?  How well do we know what other people need to  know? (eg. researchers vs. policy makers; across sectors)? What are some of the tools we can use to listen and design more effective knowledge products and pathways? THINKING beyond the canopy
    3. 3. CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study (GCS-REDD+) • To support REDD+ policy arenas and practitioner communities with - information - analysis - tools • so as to ensure 3E+ outcomes: - effectiveness - efficiency - equity and co-benefits THINKING beyond the canopy
    4. 4. THINKING beyond the canopy
    5. 5. Analysis of national REDD+ policies and processes in 12 countries since 2009 http:// www.forestsclimatechange.org/global-comparative
    6. 6. CIFOR’s 3rd edited volume on REDD 2009 2008 2012
    7. 7. CIFOR’s country profiles Drivers of Deforestation and Degradation, Institutional Context and Path-Dependencies, Political Economy, National REDD+ policy proposals and events (Brockhaus, M., M. Di Gregorio and S. Wertz-Kanounnikoff. 2012. Guide for country profiles: Global Comparative Study on REDD (GCS-REDD). Component 1 on National REDD+ Policies and Processes. CIFOR)
    8. 8. Successful knowledge generation and dissemination  CPs needed as baseline and to understand  country context (before scattered knowledge, CP guidelines allow for more comprehensive, critical, and peer-reviewed to ensure quality (and comparability) CPs can be considered a success (download rates, feedback from national policy actors and entire REDD+ community, unfortunately policy makers rarely cite …)
    9. 9. Successful knowledge generation and dissemination (2)  Basis for this success: Engaging with national partners to • ensure ownership ! • ensure access to grey literature • ensure in-country relevance -> Should allow for dissemination beyond the “usual suspects” but how do we know who are these, who are our boundary partners ? , and how do we know that our own networks are not too outdated ?
    10. 10. Who needs to know what in national REDD+ policy arenas ? policy network analysis as a tool to - identify actors - identify structural holes - identify bridges and brokers
    11. 11. REDD+ Policy Network Analysis (PNA) •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.
    12. 12. 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 influence? Repeated over time, this method can assess dynamics in power relations. Deeper insights in REDD+ policy outcomes (carbon trajectories, livelihoods changes, other co-benefits ) will allow us to assess policy effectiveness.
    13. 13. Indonesia Fragmentation in Information exchange network 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 Moeliono, M. et al. 2013. Information Networks and Power: Confronting the ‘wicked problem’ of REDD+ in Indonesia. (under review in Ecology & Society).
    14. 14. Brazil Collaboration Network 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. The triangles represent the main actors in the network, those with the highest in-degree centrality values. Gebara, M.F. et al. 2013. Networks, actors and power: A case study of REDD+ in Brazil. (under review in Ecology & Society).
    15. 15. Menton, M. et al. 2013. Policy networks in Peru. Unpublished project report. Peru Scientific Information Network CIFOR FAO FAO IIAP IIAP The results from the analysis of scientific information exchange allow a snapshot of who is being consulted Min. and trusted to provide evidence over Min. Envt contested issues. Envt It also represents a way to evaluate the impact of organizations carrying A dense network with different actors (national research institutes, international out research of REDD+ organisations, governments, national and international NGOs) are sourcesrelevant to REDD+. information. The most important players constitute one national research institute, Ministry of Environment, FAO (tied with MINAM) and CIFOR.
    16. 16. 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

    ×