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.

REDD policymaking in Nepal: business as usual or transformational change?

4,346 views

Published on

Nepal is recognised for its participatory conservation and community-based forest governance policies and programs. But in recent years, government officials and forestry bureaucrats have attempted to restrict the autonomy of forest communities and capture more economic value from forests. This presentation examines whether the current process of REDD policy formation – and the actors involved – will reinforce existing centralised forest governance, or forge more cooperative institutions capable of producing effective, cost-efficient and equitable outcomes for REDD.

Bryan Bushley, of the University of Hawaii and East-West Center, 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’. The research forming the basis of this presentation was conducted collaboratively with Dil Bahadur Khatri and others at ForestAction Nepal.

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

REDD policymaking in Nepal: business as usual or transformational change?

  1. REDD Policymaking in Nepal Business as Usual or Transformational Change? Bryan R. Bushley, University of Hawai’i and East-West Center Dil Bahadur Khatri, ForestAction Nepal ISEE Conference – Rio de JaneiroTHINKING beyond the canopy June 18, 2012
  2. Overview Forest governance and decentralization in Nepal Research questions and hypotheses Methods Results Conclusions THINKING beyond the canopy Photo by Bryan Bushley (2010)
  3. Modes of forest governance State-centric governance (statism): Government makes unilateral policy decisions about management and use of resources (Scholte 2004) Polycentric governance: Resource policy decisions made collectively by a diversity of actors in different sectors (Ostrom 2009) Market governance: Market forces and incentives drive policy decisions, with participation of other actors (Cashore 2002) THINKING beyond the canopy
  4. Multilevel governance THINKING beyond the canopy
  5. Network governance“…An attempt to take into account the increasingimportance of NGOs, the private sector, scientific networksand international institutions in the performance of variousfunctions of governance…The aim of network governance is to create a synergybetween different competences and sources ofknowledge in order to deal with complex andinterlinked problems... governance is accomplishedthrough decentralized networks of private and public actorsassociated to international, national and regionalinstitutions.” (Dedeurwaerdere 2005) THINKING beyond the canopy
  6. Forest decentralization in NepalState-centricPoly-centri c ? THINKING beyond the canopy
  7. International Nepal’s involvement in REDD COP negotiations and related events (SBSTA statements) World Bank FCPF membership and supportNational REDD Forestry & Climate  Change Cell, RPP processCommunity Carbon forestry piloting (KP‐TGAL project) REDD piloting2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year THINKING beyond the canopy
  8. Business as usual or transformational change?Is the current REDD policy process in Nepal promoting… Business as usual: A continuation of (re-)centralizing tendencies of the state, facilitated by engagement in global market-based mechanisms; OR Transformational change: An increase in the quality and quantity of participation and collaboration, leading to more cohesive, cooperative institutions of forest governance involving diverse/new actors in REDD policy-making processes, resulting in more effective, efficient, and equitable outcomes. THINKING beyond the canopy
  9. Research hypotheses REDD is [a] facilitating the domination of policy processes by powerful coalitions of select government, donor/INGO and civil society actors, while marginalizing the voice and role of other important stakeholders; and [b] serving as a vehicle for reinforcing the centralizing tendencies of the state New nodes and modes of collaboration are emerging, with the potential to transform existing institutions and processes of forest governance THINKING beyond the canopy
  10. Research questions Which actors and groups dominate the policy process in terms of influence (N1), collaboration (N7) and the exchange of information (N2/N3) and resources (N4/N5)? How inclusive is the REDD policy process (i.e., networks) of important stakeholders outside of the mainstream forestry sector? Which actors have been marginalized or excluded from the process and how? How centralized is the policy network as a whole, and what does this bode for further REDD policy development and implementation? How are different groups of actors collaborating with each other in terms of sharing information and resources? Has the REDD policy process enhanced coordination and collaboration or created new alliances among or within these groups? THINKING beyond the canopy
  11. MethodsPolicy Network Analysis: • Surveyed 34 organizations (53 listed); 7 networks • Social network analysis (UCINET and NetDraw) • Semi-structured interviewsOrganization type (& color) 53  34  Identified Interviewed  (receivers) (senders)Government 15 8Education/Research 3 2National NGOs/CBOs 12 10Business Associations 3 2INGOs 11 6Bilateral/Multilateral Donors 9 6 THINKING beyond the canopy
  12. Results: Influence (N1, n=53)Which organizations stand out as especially influential on REDD policies? (in-degree centrality) THINKING beyond the canopy
  13. Results: Influence (N1, n=34)Which organizations stand out as especially influential on REDD policies? (in-degree centrality) THINKING beyond the canopy
  14. Results: Network measures Network Code  N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N7 Network Description  Get Scientific Collaboration (symmetric) (symmetric) resources resources Percieved Exchange Influence Give Measure  Info. Info. Get Measure Definition Number of ties Total number of ties in network 486 314 185 63 80 527Number of components Total number of distinct groups 1 1 5 15 14 2 Average number of ties perAverage Degree (Centrality) 14.29 9.24 5.44 1.85 2.35 9.94 nodeDensity % of possible ties existing 43% 28% 17% 6% 7% 35%Fragmentation % of node pairs with no ties 0% 0% 19% 79% 67% 6%Reciprocity (Group/Hybrid) % of pairs with mutual ties 33% 27% 14% 9% 0% 31%Homophily (E-I Index) % of ties among like actors 32% 33% 31% 37% 65% 34%Centralization (symmetrical) Extent to which nodes are 53% 43% linked to only one central actor,Centralization (In-Degree) 58% 68% 64% 22% 30% 51% without connections among themCentralization (Out-Degree) 43% 55% 39% 35% 21% 61% Proportion of actors in the coreCore-Periphery Ratio 14/20 16/18 16/18 8/26 13/21 12/22 vs. the periphery (C/P)Betweeness Centralization ?? 0.09 0.21 0.26 0.07 0.18 0.13Index (Normalized) THINKING beyond the canopy
  15. Results: Info exchange (N2, n=34) (betweeness centrality) THINKING beyond the canopy
  16. Results: Collaboration (N7, n=34) (betweeness centrality) THINKING beyond the canopy
  17. Influential actors (nodes) – Top 10 (N1,N2,N7 - degree, betweeness, brokerage) Average Rank ACTOR Sum Count (Sum/Count) REDD Cell 19 9 2.11 FECOFUN 39 9 4.33 WWF 38 8 4.75 RECOFTC 24 7 3.43 DNPWC 28 7 4.00 ICIMOD 33 7 4.71 FA 34 7 4.86 MoLD 24 5 4.80 NEFIN 12 4 3.00 DoF 15 4 3.75 MoEnv 23 4 5.75 DFRS 25 4 6.25 USAID 15 3 5.00 DFID-LFP 19 3 6.33 ANSAB 23 3 7.67 NFA 23 3 7.67 WB-FCPF 25 3 8.33 Winrock 9 2 4.50 KU 6 1 6.00 SDC-NSCFP 7 1 7.00 THINKING beyond the canopy
  18. Conclusion: Business as usual or transformational change? REDD policy process dominated by state actors, with participation of a few donors/INGOs and influential CSOs Exchange of information and collaboration fairly centralized No direct involvement of private sector Some significant CSO involvement, but other important actors excluded Some new actors and collaborations, especially among CSOs, but little influence on forest policymaking THINKING beyond the canopy Photo by Bryan Bushley (2008)
  19. Dhanyabad § Thank You Center for International Forestry Research, Global Comparative Study on REDD ForestAction Nepal (Naya Sharma Paudel, Dipak BK, Niru Gurung) The research presented here is part of the policy component of CIFOR’s global comparative study on REDD  (GCS), led by Maria Brockhaus: http://www.forestsclimatechange.org/global‐comparative‐study‐on‐ redd.html The methods applied in this study build on work undertaken in COMPON (‘Comparing Climate Change  Policy Networks’, http://compon.org/), led by Jeffrey Broadbent and financially supported by the National  Science Foundation (NSF). Monica Di Gregorio and Maria Brockhaus adapted the COMPON research  ‘Protocol for Policy Network Analysis’. Funding for CIFOR’s research was provided the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, the  Australian Agency for International Development, the UK Department for International Development, the  European Commission, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, the David and Lucile Packard  Foundation, the Program on Forests, and the US Agency for International Development.Questions or Comments – Bryan Bushley, bushley@hawaii.edu THINKING beyond the canopy
  20. References cited Cashore, Benjamin. 2002. Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: How non-state market-driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule-making authority. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, Vol. 15, No. 4 (October 2002): 503-529. Dedeurwaerdere, Tom. 2005. The contribution of network governance to sustainable development. IDDRI Seminar Paper No. 13. Institute of Development and Durable International Relations: Paris. Ostrom 2009. Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. Nobel Prize lecture, December 8, 2009, Oslo, Norway. Scholte, J.A. 2004. Globalization and governance: From statism to polycentrism. SCGR Working Paper No. 130/04. Center for the Study of Globalization and Regionalisation, University of Warwick: Coventry, UK. THINKING beyond the canopy

×