THINKING beyond the canopy

A comparative analysis of national REDD+ policy networks: Conflicts and cooperation as drivers

for policy making

Maria Brockhaus and Monica Di GregorioISEE, Rio de Janeiro, 18th June 2012

THINKING beyond the canopy

Introduction

Policy Network Analysis provides a way to analyse political systems, focusing on the relational and positional aspects of policy processes

Allows to analyse the structural constraints and opportunities for policy change

Allows to analyse power relations within the policy process through identification of different roles and levels of influence of actors within networks

Investigates the inner mechanisms of coalition buildingwhich is the basic process by which policy learning and policy change occurs

Allows to develop policy recommendations which take into account the structural constraints and opportunities for effective policy making

THINKING beyond the canopy

Comparative Analysis of National REDD+ Policy Networks:

Research Question How do power structures (policy network structures)

affect progress of national REDD+ decision making processes?

Analytical focus in this paper currently on progressbecause REDD+ policy outcomes are not yet measurable

Hypothesis: A relatively low level of concentration of power and a high level of cooperation lead to progress in REDD+ decision making

THINKING beyond the canopy

Conceptual FrameworkTypology of Power Structures

Type of interaction

Distribution of power

Conflict/Competition Cooperation

Fragmentation  Challenge Cooperation

Concentration Dominance Consultation

Adapted from Kriesi, Adam & Jochum 2006

THINKING beyond the canopy

Mixed Methods

Expert Panel to identify network boundaries

Social Organization Survey • Informant: high representative, knowledgable person about

national REDD+ policy processes• 7 questions on relational ties (interactions) among policy actors

Actors in-depth Interviews• Question guide for semi-structured interviews• Questions aimed at capturing positions of organizations in

national REDD+ policy domain

Social network analysis & qualitative analysis

THINKING beyond the canopy

Network Questions Influence network – reputation power

Which organizations stand out as especially influential in affecting the REDD+ policies?

Cooperation network (informal coalitions)With which other organizations does your organization collaborate on a regular basis on REDD+ related issues?

Conflict networkWith which organizations does your organization often find itself disagreeing on REDD+ policy issues?

THINKING beyond the canopy

Distribution of power

Network of influence network centralization as the indicator for concentration of power

The centralization of a network is a measure of how central its most central policy actor is in relation to how central all the other policy actors are.

` “Centralization measures … (a) calculate the sum in differences in centrality between the most central node in a network and all other nodes; and (b) divide this quantity by the theoretically largest such sum of differences in any network of the same degree” (Freeman 1979)

THINKING beyond the canopy

Preliminary results: Distribution of power in REDD+ policy domains

Indonesia Vietnam Nepal Tanzania Brazil Cameroon

St dev indegrees: 11.0 8.6 8.4 11.1 9.3 6.9

St dev norm indegree 17.4 16.9 25.4 17.7 17.0 10.9

Network centralization (%) 75.6 72.5 58.4 52.0 45.8 32.3Observations (no of nodes) 64 52 34 64 56 64

THINKING beyond the canopy

Conflict and Cooperation

Analysis of conflict and collaboration networks patterns of interactions identification blocks of policy actors that are structural equivalent (4 blocks per country) “Two nodes are said to be exactly structurally equivalent if they have the same relationships to all other nodes.” Because exact structural equivalence is likely to be rare (particularly in large networks), we focus on examining the degree of structural equivalence, rather than the simple presence or absence of exact equivalence.”

Are interactions predominantly conflictual or cooperative?

THINKING beyond the canopy

Brazil Collaboration Network

THINKING beyond the canopy

Brazil Collaboration Network

THINKING beyond the canopy

Insights from early resultsCollaboration networks

Indonesia cooperation (64)Brazil cooperation (56)

Brazil conflict Indonesia conflict

THINKING beyond the canopy

Typology of power structuresType of 

interaction

Distribution of power

Conflict/Competition Forms of Cooperation

FragmentationCameroonNepal 

Tanzania

Challenge CooperationBrazil

ConcentrationVietnam

Dominance ConsultationIndonesia

THINKING beyond the canopy

Conclusion

Different power structures affect REDD+ policy progress in different ways:

Helps to identify political constraints and opportunities to effective REDD+ policy developmentAffect progress of REDD+ decision making,

participation, type of strategies(contention/cooperation) needed to achieve effective REDD+ policy outcomes

THINKING beyond the canopy

Conclusion (2)

Power structures in REDD+ policy arenas do not mirror the type of political regime

Fragmentation of power produces inclusive policy domains but difficult to coordinateConcentration of power provides speedy

political decisions, but lacks inclusivenessDifferent power structures require different

degrees of cooperation and contention to move from business as usual to effective REDD+ policy progress

THINKING beyond the canopy

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.