Download pdf - Dead-lock or transformational change – a comparison of REDD+ politics in the media

THINKING beyond the canopy

Deadlock or transformational change: a comparison of REDD+ politics in the media

Monica Di Gregorio, Maria Brockhaus, Tim Cronin, Efrian Muharrom, Sofi Mardiah, Levania Santoso

18 June 2012, ISEE, Rio de Janeiro


Six countries

Nepal

Vietnam

IndonesiaBrazilPeru PNG


Research questions:

How pervasive are REDD+ debates in national media

and how are these debates framed?

Who are the main actors driving these debates and what

is their vision of REDD+?

What are the dominant and minority coalitions and do

they advocate business as usual or transformational

change?


Theory & methods Analysis of policy coalitions Transformational coalitions (vs BAU): embrace discourse on the

drivers of deforestation and propose solutions to root causesDominant coalition (vs minority): broad, inclusive and featuring

political and economic elites

Methods Sources:

• 3 national newspapers per country• December 2005 (COP11) – December 2010• Keyword search to identify REDD+ related articles

Content analysis• Standardised codebook to code media frames (quantitative)• Manual coding on ‘stances’ of policy actors (qualitative)


S01. REDD (or at least forests) should be part of the global solution to climate change [SOLUTION]

S02. REDD should be financed by developed countries [DEVELOPED WORLD]

S03. REDD should be financed by a carbon offsetting market mechanism [MARKET]

S04. REDD programs should be formulated and managed at the national level [CENTRALISED]

S05. REDD should provide co‐benefits apart from combating climate change [CO‐BENEFITS]

S06. REDD should incorporate avoided degradation, conservation and reforestation, not just avoided deforestation [REDD+]

S07. REDD risks to reduce access to forest resources and harm traditional forest users [RIGHTS]

S08. REDD will require major governance and institutional reform [GOVERNANCE]

S09. REDD will require major technical capacity building [CAPACITY BUILDING]

S10. REDD should not compromise Indonesia's economic growth, including that generated through agricultural expansion [GROWTH]

Stances -Indonesia

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

1. SOLUTION

2. DEVELOPED WORLD

3. MARKET

4. CENTRALISED

5. CO‐BENEFITS

6. REDD+

7. RIGHTS

8. GOVERNANCE

9. CAPACITY BUILDING

10. GROWTH

OTHER

Agree

Disagree


Stances - Indonesia

National level state and bureaucratic actors

Sub-national or local state actor

Farmers federation or group

Indigenous organization

Domestic NGO or NGO coalition

Domestic ENGO or ENGO coalition

International NGO

International ENGO

National private business

Multinational corporation

Business association

National research centre or think tank

International research centre or think tank

Intergovernmental organization or body

Non-Indonesian state actor

S01 [SOLUTION]

S02 [DEVELOPED WORLD]

S03 [MARKET]

S04 [CENTRALISED]

S05 [CO-BENEFITS]

S06 [REDD+]

S07 [RIGHTS]

S08 [GOVERNANCE]

S09 [CAPACITY BUILDING]

S10 [GROWTH]

National /Local International/ Foreign

Political Party ORANGE lighter orange

Participatory Venue*

RED lighter red

NGO GREEN lighter green

Business YELLOW lighter yellow/gold

Government BLUE lighter blue

Research PURPLE lighter purple

Other BROWN lighter brown

Actors: CirclesStances: Squares (WHITE)Line width: Denotes strength of tie (# of statements made)Agree statements: BLUE solid lineDisagree statements: RED dashed lineAgree and disagree statements: BLACK dotted line


Indonesia

National level state and bureaucratic actors

Sub-national or local state actor

Indigenous organization

Domestic NGO or NGO coalition

Domestic ENGO or ENGO coalition

International NGO

International ENGO

National research centre or think tank

International research centre or think tank

Intergovernmental organization or body

Non-Indonesian state actor

S01 [SOLUTION]

S02 [DEVELOPED WORLD]

3 [MARKET]

S04 [CENTRALISED]

S07 [RIGHTS]

S08 [GOVERNANCE]


Comparative results: Identical stances

REDD (or at least forests) should be part of the global solution to climate change [SOLUTION]

REDD should be financed by developed countries [DEVELOPED WORLD]

REDD will require major governance and institutional reform [GOVERNANCE]

REDD should be financed by a carbon offsetting market mechanism (inc. VCAs) [MARKET]


Comparative results: Identical stances

REDD (or at least forests) should be part of the global solution to climate change [SOLUTION]

REDD should be financed by developed countries [DEVELOPED WORLD]

REDD will require major governance and institutional reform [GOVERNANCE]

REDD should be financed by a carbon offsetting market mechanism (inc. VCAs) [MARKET]


Same issue, different framing

Indonesia: REDD risks to dispossess/reduce access to forest resources and harm traditional forest users [RIGHTS]

Brazil: REDD should include indigenous and forest dwelling communities in discussions and decision making [INCLUSION]

PNG: REDD funding (inc. VCAs) should benefit landowners for protecting forests [LANDOWNERS]

Peru: If REDD is to go ahead, it is necessary to address land rights, corruption and bureaucracy

Nepal: Money earned through REDD should benefit local, poor and indigenous communities [COMMUNITIES]


Unique stances and debates

Indonesia: REDD programs should be formulated and managed at the national level [CENTRALISED]

Brazil: REDD will enable us to value the environmental services of forests [PES]

PNG: REDD funding (inc. VCAs) will encourage corruption and exploitation [EXPLOITATION]

Vietnam: Environmental services from forest should be financed by domestic beneficiaries [USER PAYS]

Peru: Natural forests should not be valued alongside plantations; REDD threatens biodiversity [NO PLANTATIONS]


Conclusion

Dominant coalitions =→ Business as usual

→ Broad agreement

Minority coalitions = →Transformational

→ Contested issues (e.g. rights)

Moving coalitions from minority to dominant will require stronger engagement by national state actors on difficult and contentious issues


AcknowledgementsThis 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), Daju Resosudarmo & Moira Moeliono (Indonesia), Andrea Babon (PNG), Peter Cronkleton (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 (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 (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), Rehema Tukai, George Jambiya, Riziki Shemdoe, Demetrius Kweka, Therese Dokken (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, Markku Kanninen, Elena Petkova, Arild Angelsen, Jan Boerner, Anne Larson, Martin Herold, and Pablo Pacheco.

We gratefully acknowledge the support received from the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, the Australian Agency for International Development, the European Commission,

and the UK Department for International Development.


www.cifor.cgiar.orgwww.cifor.cgiar.org

Thank you!