Knowledge and brokerage in REDD+ policymaking: evidence from Tanzania

Knowledge and brokerage in REDD+ policymaking: evidence from Tanzania

• 1.
  Knowledge and brokeragein REDD+ policymaking: evidence from Tanzania Salla  Rantala   Sustainability  Science  Program,  Harvard  Kennedy    School   ISEE  2012  conference,  June  18,  2012    
• 2.
  National REDD+ policyprocesses §  REDD+ aims to address a multifaceted, transnational common pool resource problem – numerous overlapping interests at stake §  Amidst international uncertainty, several countries are preparing their national REDD+ policies with support by Norway, World Bank-FCPF, UN- REDD §  Policy actors have varying bases of knowledge and capacities (and other resources) to assimilate new REDD+ related information that is coming out on an almost daily basis How do national policy actors make sense of the complexity and decide how to act? Who gets their point across, why? What implications does this have for the legitimacy and effectiveness of policy?
• 3.
  Policy Networks Analysis Policyformulation, decisions, and outcomes result from different types of interactions between diverse actors, mediated by institutional and relational structures, agency and political opportunity. §  Relational structures operationalized as networks, e.g. Ø  resource networks, incl. material and informational ties Ø  networks of meanings: shared concerns, discourses; Ø  participation in the same events. §  Actors mobilize support and resources to influence process and outcomes. Relational structures pose both social constraints and opportunities on the actors’ action repertoires.
• 4.
  Knowledge, coalitions andbrokerage §  Discursive dimension: the more public the process, the more space for deliberation to influence policy outcomes (Leifeld & Haunss 2011) §  Discourse coalitions (Hajer 1995) •  Shared articulation of policy problems and solutions •  Discursive institutionalization: the concepts articulated by a coalition come to be acted upon in the policy process - mediated by resource interdependencies §  Brokers in boundary-spanning, strategic positions for information flow – mediators or self-interested manipulators?
• 5.
  Case study: nationalREDD+ strategy development in Tanzania §  33.5 million ha forest and woodland – 2/3 unclear tenure & contested claims §  Norwegian investment in national REDD+ Strategy development, REDD+ pilot projects, and capacity-building (USD 100 million since 2008) §  Strategy development led by gov’t REDD+ Task Force, facilitated by a Secretariat §  In principle, a participatory process – inclusion of sub-national levels of government and civil society through a series of consultations
• 6.
  Data (2011) •  Censussampling of actors (organizations), policy events and protest events •  64 organizational actors, 5+5 events •  Structured survey (94% response) and in-depth semi-structured interviews (76% response) – UCINET network analysis & qualitative content analysis
• 7.
  Centrality – indicatorof status and power §  The same five actors are most central in networks of influence, REDD+ communication and information sharing, resource exchange and collaboration: •  2 governmental members of the national REDD+ Task Force in 2011 •  Task Force Secretariat (a national research institute) •  Norway •  two national forest/natural resource NGOs Core-­‐periphery  structure  in  the  network  of   communicaGon  and  informaGon  exchange  
• 8.
  Framing REDD+ §  Highconsensus among the Tanzanian policy actors about key issues that need to be addressed in order to achieve effective REDD+ §  Divergence regarding policy options, especially modalities of benefit sharing •  CSOs (protest events, REDD+ pilots): Nested approach •  Government-led REDD+ Task Force: National approach Stances  by  organizaGonal  type  regarding   the  statement  “All  REDD  accoun&ng  and   payments  should  go  through  the   na&onal  governments”.  1=strongly   disagree,  5=strongly  agree  
• 9.
  Discourse coalitions §  Strongnorm-based advocacy by the “protest coalition”: community rights to participation and benefits – the only way to achieve effective & legitimate REDD+ §  Government-led Task Force members share the same concepts, but appear more driven by achievement of technical qualifications for int’l REDD+ finance •  REDD+ as an opportunity to channel funds to forest management •  Gov’t leadership is key for effective (and legitimate?) REDD+ §  Loose discourse coalitions. Actors of both coalitions are part of the core in the various networks “A  na&onal  approach  is  necessary  to   ensure  effec&veness  of  REDD”   Blue=parGcipated  in  protest  events;   Red=did  not  parGcipate  in  any  protest   events    
• 10.
  Brokers §  37 ofthe surveyed actors are “technical” organizations, 20 have a strong mission in REDD+ relevant knowledge dissemination, 12 consider themselves government advisors in REDD+ policy issues §  But in the network structural sense, few are brokers Elected  to   represent   CSOs  in  the   new   expanded   Task  Force  in   Nov  2011   OrganizaGons  in   a  coordinator/   representa.ve   Protest   event   role  in  the   leader   network  of  REDD +  communicaGon   and  informaGon   sharing  
• 11.
  Brokers OrganizaGons  in  a  liaison  role  in  the  network  of  REDD+   communicaGon  and  informaGon  sharing  
• 12.
  Recent developments inthe policy process §  National REDD Task Force has been expanded to include 6 new ministries & 1 CSO member §  Thematic working groups: •  1: Legal, Governance and Safeguards •  2: Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) •  3: Financial Mechanism: REDD+ Fund •  4: Energy Drivers •  5: Agriculture Drivers §  Echoed in the 2nd draft national REDD+ strategy (exec. summary Nov 2011)
• 13.
  Conclusions – dynamicsof the policy process §  Network positions of key members of both discourse coalitions are conducive for policy influence §  “Protest coalition”: strong ideational congruence among a stable core of key members, normative arguments with wide bases of legitimacy §  Through public efforts to promote deliberation and key brokers, CSOs have gained discursive space §  “Gov’t coalition”: shares the same concepts but a discourse of ambiguity; institutional filter works in their advantage
• 14.
  Conclusions – legitimacyand effectiveness §  Identified brokers are in positions to enhance information flow and mediate, but not (seen to be) neutral §  For “true” legitimacy, crucial to assess quality of vertical representation, and lines of accountability §  How to break the stalemate regarding polarizing issues & enhance chances of having an effective policy? Ø  new knowledge by third parties (e.g. modelling outcomes of different proposals) – but structural constraints for linking knowledge to action apply Ø  focus deliberative efforts on issues where (at least superficial) conceptual overlap between coalitions
• 15.
  Thank you! [email protected] Acknowledgements: §  CIFOR’s  global  comparaGve  study  on  REDD  (GCS)   hZp://www.forestsclimatechange.org/global-­‐comparaGve-­‐study-­‐on-­‐redd.html;  Maria   Brockhaus,  Monica  Di  Gregorio,  COMPON  project  (‘Comparing  Climate  Change  Policy   Networks’,  hZp://compon.org/)   §  William  Clark,  Harvard  Sustainability  Science  Program,  Fulbright  Center,  Finnish   Cultural  FoundaGon   §  Funding  for  CIFOR’s  research  was  provided  by  the  Norwegian  Agency  for  Development   CooperaGon,  the  Australian  Agency  for  InternaGonal  Development,  the  UK   Department  for  InternaGonal  Development,  the  European  Commission,  the  Ministry   for  Foreign  Affairs  of  Finland,  the  David  and  Lucile  Packard  FoundaGon,  the  Program   on  Forests,  and  the  US  Agency  for  InternaGonal  Development.