Knowledge generation and dissemination in CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+

Maria Brockhaus

GLF Warsaw, November 2013

THINKING beyond the canopy

Key questions

What makes knowledge generation and uptake successful?

What are some of the barriers to sharing knowledge?

How well do we know what other people need to know? (eg. researchers vs. policy makers; across sectors)?

What are some of the tools we can use to listen and design more effective knowledge products and pathways?

THINKING beyond the canopy

CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study (GCS-REDD+)

• To support REDD+ policy arenas and practitioner communities with

- information

- analysis

- tools

• so as to ensure 3E+ outcomes:

- effectiveness

- efficiency

- equity and co-benefits

THINKING beyond the canopy

Analysis of national REDD+ policies and processes in 12 countries since 2009

http://www.forestsclimatechange.org/global-comparative-study-on-redd.html

2008

2012

2009

CIFOR’s 3rd edited volume

on REDD

CIFOR’s country profiles Drivers of Deforestation and Degradation, Institutional Context and Path-Dependencies, Political Economy, National REDD+ policy proposals and events (Brockhaus, M., M. Di Gregorio and S. Wertz-Kanounnikoff. 2012. Guide for country profiles: Global Comparative Study on REDD (GCS-REDD). Component 1 on National REDD+ Policies and Processes. CIFOR)

Successful knowledge generation and dissemination

CPs needed as baseline and to understand country context (before scattered knowledge, CP guidelines allow for more comprehensive, critical, and peer-reviewed to ensure quality (and comparability)

CPs can be considered a success (download rates, feedback from national policy actors and entire REDD+ community, unfortunately policy makers rarely cite …)

Successful knowledge generation and dissemination (2)

Basis for this success: Engaging with national partners to

• ensure ownership !

• ensure access to grey literature

• ensure in-country relevance

-> Should allow for dissemination beyond the “usual suspects” but how do we know who are these, who are our

boundary partners ? , and how do we know that our own networks

are not too outdated ?

Who needs to know what in national REDD+ policy arenas ?

policy network analysis as a tool to

- identify actors- identify structural holes

- identify bridges and brokers

•Analysis underway in 8 countries (Brazil, Cameroon, Indonesia, Nepal, Peru, Papua New Guinea, Tanzania, Vietnam, >1000 interviews hours)

•Assesses relational and structural aspects of actors and the REDD arena and considers implications for the 3E+ content of REDD strategies.

REDD+ Policy Network Analysis (PNA)

Examines questions including:•Who is involved in national REDD policy making?•What are their perceptions, interests, and power relations?•What are their networks of information and influence?

Repeated over time, this method can assess dynamics in power relations. Deeper insights in REDD+ policy outcomes (carbon trajectories, livelihoods changes, other co-benefits ) will allow us to assess policy effectiveness.

REDD+ Policy Network Analysis (PNA

Exchange of information very limited, actors of same types mainly speak together, no ‘real’ exchange WHY?•Organizations are not aware of each other?•Some are not seen as important?•Respect???

4 distinct clustersHomophily strong in national government cluster

Only one bridge

IndonesiaFragmentation in Information exchange network

Moeliono, M. et al. 2013. Information Networks and Power: Confronting the ‘wicked problem’ of REDD+ in Indonesia. (under review in Ecology & Society).

The triangles represent the main actors in the network, those with the highest in-degree centrality values.

Brazil Collaboration Network

Gebara, M.F. et al. 2013. Networks, actors and power: A case study of REDD+ in Brazil. (under review in Ecology & Society).

We show the importance of intermediary organizations, that can bridge different networks parts and are brokers – we also demonstrate how the private sector and many government actors are outsiders.

CIFOR

Min. EnvtMin. Envt

FAOFAOIIAPIIAP

PeruScientific Information Network

A dense network with different actors (national research institutes, international organisations, governments, national and international NGOs) are sources of REDD+ information. The most important players constitute one national research institute, Ministry of Environment, FAO (tied with MINAM) and CIFOR.

Menton, M. et al. 2013. Policy networks in Peru. Unpublished project report.

The results from the analysis of scientific information exchange allow a snapshot of who is being consulted and trusted to provide evidence over contested issues. It also represents a way to evaluate the impact of organizations carrying out research relevant to REDD+.

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), Thuy Thu Pham and Guillaume Lestrelin (Laos), Daju Resosudarmo & Moira Moeliono (Indonesia), Andrea Babon (PNG), Peter Cronkleton, Kaisa Korhonen-Kurki, Pablo Pacheco (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 & Houria Djoudi (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, Naya Paudel (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), Demetrius Kweka, Therese Dokken, Rehema Tukai, George Jambiya, Riziki Shemdoe, (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, Frances Seymour, Lou Verchot, Markku Kanninen, Elena Petkova, Arild Angelsen, Jan Boerner, Anne Larson, Martin Herold, Rachel Carmenta, Juniarta Tjajadi, Cynthia Maharani