Knowledge and brokerage in REDD+ policymaking: evidence
from Tanzania
Salla Rantala Sustainability Science Program, Harvard Kennedy School ISEE 2012 conference, June 18, 2012
National REDD+ policy processes
§ 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?
Policy Networks Analysis
Policy formulation, 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.
Knowledge, coalitions and brokerage
§ 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?
Case study: national REDD+ 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
Data (2011) • Census sampling 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
Core-‐periphery structure in the network of communicaGon and informaGon exchange
Centrality – indicator of 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
Framing REDD+ § High consensus 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
“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
Discourse coalitions § Strong norm-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
Brokers § 37 of the 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
OrganizaGons in a coordinator/ representa.ve role in the network of REDD+ communicaGon and informaGon sharing
Protest event leader
Elected to represent CSOs in the
new expanded
Task Force in Nov 2011
Brokers
OrganizaGons in a liaison role in the network of REDD+ communicaGon and informaGon sharing
Recent developments in the 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)
Conclusions – dynamics of 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
§ 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
Conclusions – legitimacy and effectiveness
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.
Recommended
