REDD policymaking in Nepal: business as usual or transformational change?
20
THINKING beyond the canopy REDD Policymaking in Nepal Business as Usual or Transformational Change? Bryan R. Bushley, University of Hawai’i and East-West Center Dil Bahadur Khatri, ForestAction Nepal ISEE Conference – Rio de Janeiro June 18, 2012
-
Upload
center-for-international-forestry-research-cifor -
Category
Education
-
view
2.546 -
download
1
description
Nepal is recognised for its participatory conservation and community-based forest governance policies and programs. But in recent years, government officials and forestry bureaucrats have attempted to restrict the autonomy of forest communities and capture more economic value from forests. This presentation examines whether the current process of REDD policy formation – and the actors involved – will reinforce existing centralised forest governance, or forge more cooperative institutions capable of producing effective, cost-efficient and equitable outcomes for REDD. Bryan Bushley, of the University of Hawaii and East-West Center, gave this presentation on 18 June 2012 at a panel discussion organised by CIFOR and partners at the ISEE 2012 Conference at Rio, which convened under the topic "Ecological Economics and Rio+20: Challenges and Contributions for a Green Economy". The panel was titled ‘National strategies for reducing emissions from avoided deforestation and degradation – how much transformational change is possible in current political and economic realities? Part II – A policy network perspective’. The research forming the basis of this presentation was conducted collaboratively with Dil Bahadur Khatri and others at ForestAction Nepal.
Transcript of REDD policymaking in Nepal: business as usual or transformational change?
THINKING beyond the canopy
REDD Policymaking in Nepal Business as Usual or Transformational Change?
Bryan R. Bushley, University of Hawai’i and East-West CenterDil Bahadur Khatri, ForestAction Nepal
ISEE Conference – Rio de JaneiroJune 18, 2012
THINKING beyond the canopy
Overview
Forest governance and decentralization in Nepal
Research questions and hypotheses
Methods
Results
Conclusions
Photo by Bryan Bushley (2010)
THINKING beyond the canopy
Modes of forest governance
State-centric governance (statism): Government makes unilateral policy decisions about management and use of resources (Scholte 2004)
Polycentric governance: Resource policy decisions made collectively by a diversity of actors in different sectors (Ostrom 2009)
Market governance: Market forces and incentives drive policy decisions, with participation of other actors (Cashore 2002)
THINKING beyond the canopy
Multilevel governance
THINKING beyond the canopy
Network governance“…An attempt to take into account the increasing importance of NGOs, the private sector, scientific networks and international institutions in the performance of various functions of governance…
The aim of network governance is to create a synergy between different competences and sources of knowledge in order to deal with complex and interlinked problems... governance is accomplished through decentralized networks of private and public actors associated to international, national and regional institutions.”
(Dedeurwaerdere 2005)
THINKING beyond the canopy
Forest decentralization in Nepal
State-centric
Poly-centri
c
?
THINKING beyond the canopy
Nepal’s involvement in REDD
2007 2009 2010
COP negotiations and related events (SBSTA statements)
World Bank FCPF membership and support
REDD piloting
REDD Forestry & Climate Change Cell, RPP process
Carbon forestry piloting (KP‐TGAL project)
20062005 2008 2011Year
Inte
rnat
iona
lN
atio
nal
Com
mun
ity
2012
THINKING beyond the canopy
Business as usual or transformational change?
Is the current REDD policy process in Nepal promoting…
Business as usual: A continuation of (re-)centralizing tendencies of the state, facilitated by engagement in global market-based mechanisms; OR
Transformational change: An increase in the quality and quantity of participation and collaboration, leading to more cohesive, cooperative institutions of forest governance involving diverse/new actors in REDD policy-making processes, resulting in more effective, efficient, and equitable outcomes.
THINKING beyond the canopy
Research hypotheses REDD is [a] facilitating the
domination of policy processes by powerful coalitions of select government, donor/INGO and civil society actors, while marginalizing the voice and role of other important stakeholders; and [b] serving as a vehicle for reinforcing the centralizing tendencies of the state
New nodes and modes of collaboration are emerging, with the potential to transform existing institutions and processes of forest governance
THINKING beyond the canopy
Research questions Which actors and groups dominate the policy process in terms of
influence (N1), collaboration (N7) and the exchange of information (N2/N3) and resources (N4/N5)?
How inclusive is the REDD policy process (i.e., networks) of important stakeholders outside of the mainstream forestry sector? Which actors have been marginalized or excluded from the process and how?
How centralized is the policy network as a whole, and what does this bode for further REDD policy development and implementation?
How are different groups of actors collaborating with each other in terms of sharing information and resources? Has the REDD policy process enhanced coordination and collaboration or created new alliances among or within these groups?
THINKING beyond the canopy
MethodsPolicy Network Analysis:
• Surveyed 34 organizations (53 listed); 7 networks• Social network analysis (UCINET and NetDraw)• Semi-structured interviews
Organization type (& color) 53 Identified(receivers)
34 Interviewed (senders)
Government 15 8Education/Research 3 2National NGOs/CBOs 12 10Business Associations 3 2INGOs 11 6Bilateral/Multilateral Donors 9 6
THINKING beyond the canopy
Results: Influence (N1, n=53)Which organizations stand out as especially influential on REDD policies?
(in-degree centrality)
THINKING beyond the canopy
Results: Influence (N1, n=34)Which organizations stand out as especially influential on REDD policies?
(in-degree centrality)
THINKING beyond the canopy
Results: Network measuresNetwork Code N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N7
Network Description
Measure Definition
Number of ties Total number of ties in network 486 314 185 63 80 527
Number of components Total number of distinct groups 1 1 5 15 14 2
Average Degree (Centrality) Average number of ties pernode 14.29 9.24 5.44 1.85 2.35 9.94
Density % of possible ties existing 43% 28% 17% 6% 7% 35%
Fragmentation % of node pairs with no ties 0% 0% 19% 79% 67% 6%
Reciprocity (Group/Hybrid) % of pairs with mutual ties 33% 27% 14% 9% 0% 31%
Homophily (E-I Index) % of ties among like actors 32% 33% 31% 37% 65% 34%
Centralization (symmetrical) 53% 43%Centralization (In-Degree) 58% 68% 64% 22% 30% 51%
Centralization (Out-Degree) 43% 55% 39% 35% 21% 61%
Core-Periphery Ratio Proportion of actors in the corevs. the periphery (C/P) 14/20 16/18 16/18 8/26 13/21 12/22
Betweeness Centralization Index (Normalized) ?? 0.09 0.21 0.26 0.07 0.18 0.13
Extent to which nodes are linked to only one central actor, without connections among them
Col
labo
ratio
n (s
ymm
etric
)
Measure
Perc
ieve
d In
fluen
ce
Info
. Ex
chan
ge
(sym
met
ric)
Get
Sci
entif
ic
Info
.
Giv
e re
sour
ces
Get
re
sour
ces
THINKING beyond the canopy
Results: Info exchange (N2, n=34)(betweeness centrality)
THINKING beyond the canopy
Results: Collaboration (N7, n=34)(betweeness centrality)
THINKING beyond the canopy
Influential actors (nodes) – Top 10 (N1,N2,N7 - degree, betweeness, brokerage)
ACTOR Sum CountAverage Rank (Sum/Count)
REDD Cell 19 9 2.11FECOFUN 39 9 4.33
WWF 38 8 4.75RECOFTC 24 7 3.43DNPWC 28 7 4.00ICIMOD 33 7 4.71
FA 34 7 4.86MoLD 24 5 4.80NEFIN 12 4 3.00DoF 15 4 3.75
MoEnv 23 4 5.75DFRS 25 4 6.25USAID 15 3 5.00
DFID-LFP 19 3 6.33ANSAB 23 3 7.67
NFA 23 3 7.67WB-FCPF 25 3 8.33Winrock 9 2 4.50
KU 6 1 6.00SDC-NSCFP 7 1 7.00
THINKING beyond the canopy
Conclusion: Business as usual or transformational change?
REDD policy process dominated by state actors, with participation of a few donors/INGOs and influential CSOs
Exchange of information and collaboration fairly centralized
No direct involvement of private sector
Some significant CSO involvement, but other important actors excluded
Some new actors and collaborations, especially among CSOs, but little influence on forest policymaking
Photo by Bryan Bushley (2008)
THINKING beyond the canopy
Center for International Forestry Research,Global Comparative Study on REDD
ForestAction Nepal (Naya Sharma Paudel, Dipak BK, Niru Gurung)
The research presented here is part of the policy component of CIFOR’s global comparative study on REDD (GCS), led by Maria Brockhaus: http://www.forestsclimatechange.org/global‐comparative‐study‐on‐redd.html
The methods applied in this study build on work undertaken in COMPON (‘Comparing Climate Change Policy Networks’, http://compon.org/), led by Jeffrey Broadbent and financially supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Monica Di Gregorio and Maria Brockhaus adapted the COMPON research ‘Protocol for Policy Network Analysis’.
Funding for CIFOR’s research was provided the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, the Australian Agency for International Development, the UK Department for International Development, the European Commission, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Program on Forests, and the US Agency for International Development.
Dhanyabad § Thank You
Questions or Comments – Bryan Bushley, [email protected]
THINKING beyond the canopy
References cited
Cashore, Benjamin. 2002. Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: How non-state market-driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule-making authority. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, Vol. 15, No. 4 (October 2002): 503-529.
Dedeurwaerdere, Tom. 2005. The contribution of network governance to sustainable development. IDDRI Seminar Paper No. 13. Institute of Development and Durable International Relations: Paris.
Ostrom 2009. Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. Nobel Prize lecture, December 8, 2009, Oslo, Norway.
Scholte, J.A. 2004. Globalization and governance: From statism to polycentrism. SCGR Working Paper No. 130/04. Center for the Study of Globalization and Regionalisation, University of Warwick: Coventry, UK.
