This presentation by Moira Moelino given at the Forests Asia Summit during the discussion forum "Climate change: Low-emissions development and societal welfare – trade offs, risks and power struggles in forest and climate change policy arenas" focuses on cross-scale information flows and mitigation and adaptation insights across sectors.

1. The REDD+ Policy Arena: where are
the bridges and brokers ?
GCS-M1 and ASFCC
Forest Asia Summit
Jakarta, 5 May 2014

2. Outline
Introduction-background
Cross level information exchange
Cross sector coordination
Information exchange across
actors in policy arena
Discussion and Conclusion

3. Introduction: REDD+, stakeholders
and relationships
REDD+ = a wicked problem
• REDD+  improving forest
governance
• ReformsMulti-
stakeholder processes 
more consultations
more info exchange?

4. THINKING beyond the canopy
REDD+ and Information
• Brockhaus and Angelsen (2012: 26) note that
“the collection and sharing of data and
information are the nuts and bolts of the
REDD+ mechanism.”
• Requiring effective integration of both local
and national forest policies and
institutions, REDD+ is inherently a multi-
level, cross-scale enterprise (Korhonen-
Kurki, et al., 2012).

5. Cross scale information flow

6. Example:
Moeliono et al. 2014. Information Networks
and Power: Confronting the "Wicked
Problem" of REDD+ in Indonesia
and Gallemore et al. 2014. Discursive
barriers and cross-scale forest governance
in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia

7. THINKING beyond the canopy
Influence and cross-scale information flows

8. Cross-scale information brokerage

9. THINKING beyond the canopy
However
• State actors are the most powerful actors connecting across scales.
• But International NGOs have important brokerage roles (but are not
very powerful)
 Domestic non-state actors do not have the capacity to act a brokers
across scales
 Control of central and provincial state actors also provide them with
a responsibility to make sure that information is disseminated to
non-state actors

10. Across sectors

11. Example:
Pham et al. Integration of
adaptation and mitigation in
climate change and forest policies
in Indonesia and Vietnam. Under
review.

12. THINKING beyond the canopy
Mitigation and Adaptation synergies
• Need for coherent policies is recognized
• Many actors in the REDD+ policy arena in
both Vietnam and Indonesia recognize that
REDD+ is also likely to help coping and
adaptating to climate change
• Policies are in place

13. THINKING beyond the canopy
Mitigation and Adaptation Policies
Indonesia Vietnam
Adaptation National Adaptation Strategy 2003.
Indonesia’s Climate Change Adaptation Programme
(ICCAP).
Law Number 24 Year 2007 on Disaster Management.
Action Plan Framework for
Adaptation to Climate Change in the
Agriculture and Rural Development
Sector, period 2008-2020.
Mitigation National REDD+ strategy.
Green Paper on its Economic and Fiscal Policy
Strategies for Climate Change Mitigation outlining the
Government’s fiscal and economic policies for
emissions reductions, carbon finance, and institutional
strengthening.
National Payment for Forest.
Environmental Services (PFES):
Decree 99.
National REDD+ Program.
Both
adaptation and
mitigation
National Action Plan Addressing Climate Change
(RAN-PI) 2007.
Indonesia Climate Change Sectoral Roadmap 2010.
National Strategy for Environmental
Protection .
National Target Program (NTP) to
Respond to Climate Change.
Action Plan for Adaptation and
Mitigation.
Decision No. 2139 on the National
Climate Change Strategy.

14. THINKING beyond the canopy
However:
• There is no clear guidance and emphasis to integrate adaptation and
mitigation in existing policies.
• Adaptation and mitigation are rarely addressed jointly because
– political priorities favoring one approach or the other,
– competition and weak coordination among government agencies
– low uptake of national political commitments on adaptation and
mitigation at the local level.
– Different funding streams

15. Information exchange
among policy actors

16. Example:
Moeliono et al. 2013. REDD+ and
policy networks in Indonesia
Moeliono et al. 2014. Information
Networks and Power: Confronting
the "Wicked Problem" of
REDD+ in Indonesia

17. THINKING beyond the canopy
Reciprocal Information Exchange
4 distinct clusters with One bridge
Homophily strongest in national government cluster

18. THINKING beyond the canopy
Has information been exchanged?

19. THINKING beyond the canopy
And who is missing?
• Only two actors of the private sector visible. Who are they?
– palm oil and mining companies whose activities continue to lead
to deforestation and forest degradation,
– Companies who are pursuing business as usual;
– green strategists, who have developed environmentally friendly
programs as part of corporate social responsibility strategies;
– carbon money makers, who seek opportunities in the carbon
market; or
– consultants, who provide advice on how to build and work with
REDD+.

20. THINKING beyond the canopy
Discussion
All actors exchange information 
workshops, meetings on REDD+, as well
as funding  opportunities to build
networks
Prominence of government agencies 
influence?
• Homophily  Organizations not aware of
each other, or not considered important, or
no respect ???

21. Discussion (2)
Challenges:
• Different funding streams for each sector and
or actor
• Talking and discussions plenty but not realized
in actions
• Progress at national level  local level?

22. THINKING beyond the canopy
Conclusion
• There is progress: one map
policy, moratorium, institutions
But
• When information exchange is mostly
within actor groups, can collaboration
exist?
• Transformational Change?? Not quite, due
to stickiness of institutions and the
resistance to deal with the basic problems

23. THINKING beyond the canopy
Acknowledgments
The here presented research is part of the policy component of CIFOR’s global
comparative study on REDD (GCS) http://www.forestsclimatechange.org/global-
comparative-study-on-redd.html, led by Maria Brockhaus.
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.