This presentation by S. Assembe-Mvondo, R. Eba’a Atyi and M. Brockhaus focuses on the applied policy transfer theory to the REDD+ regime, the REDD+ regime in context with the Congo Basin forests and how the REDD+ regime is transferring in Central Africa countries.

1. REDD+ in Central Africa: an overview of
opportunities and challenges for transferring policy
S. Assembe-Mvondo, R. Eba’a Atyi & M. Brockhaus

2. THINKING beyond the canopy
Outline
 GCS Study
 Transformational change and the 4Is –
institutions, interests, ideas, information – what
enables or hinders change?
 Policy research transfer framework – why useful
for looking at the COMIFAC?
 Constraints for change –enabling or hindering
policies?
 Conclusions

3. THINKING beyond the canopy
FORAFAMA
and
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

4. Analysis of national REDD+ policies and processes
in 14 countries since 2009
http://www.forestsclimatechange.org/global-comparative-
study-on-redd.html

5. THINKING beyond the canopy
Background and challenges in
national REDD+ since 2005
Among others ...
 Coordination across sectors and administrative levels (in
decentralized systems)
 Tenure, financing systems, benefit sharing and participation
 MRV systems and capacity
 Scope, scale, permanence, leakage
 Sovereignty and ownership over process and reform(s)
 Capacity and political will to address the drivers of forest carbon
change (driven oftentimes by interests of powerful elites) and
identifying an effective policy mix
 how to realize policy change in and beyond the forestry
sector?

6. THINKING beyond the canopy
Transformational change versus
business-as-usual
Transformational change:
‘a shift in discourse, attitudes, power relations, and
deliberate policy and protest action that leads policy
formulation and implementation away from business as
usual policy approaches that directly or indirectly
support deforestation and forest degradation’
(Brockhaus and Angelsen, 2012; Di Gregorio et al, 2012 in ‘Analysing
REDD+’)

7. Examples of
transformational change
In the context of REDD+, transformational
outcomes can be
i) changes in economic, regulatory and
governance frameworks, including the
devolution of rights to local users;
ii) removals of perverse incentives, such as
subsidies and concessions that serve
selective economic interests and stimulate
deforestation and forest degradation; and
iii) reforms of forest industry policies and
regulations that effectively reduce
unsustainable extraction

8. THINKING beyond the canopy
Seeing
REDD+
through
4I’s:
institutions,
interests,
ideas,
information
(Brockhaus and
Angelsen 2012)

9. How do the 4 Is hinder or enable
change (1)
 Institutions: Formal power typically rests with
the ‘stickiest’ organisations – those with
enough influence to resist change – while new
institutions and actors are ignored or remain
isolated (e.g. colonial rules, Ministries
responsible for natural resources)
 Interests: State’s interest in social and
economic welfare can fall short if lack of
autonomy from interests that drive
deforestation and degradation (e.g. rent
seeking, fraud, collusion and corruption
practices inside the bureaucratic system)

10. How do the 4 Is hinder or enable
change (2)
 Ideas: discourse affects policy making, they frame
the problem and present a limited set of choices of
what is ‘reasonable’ or what is put forward as ‘the
possible’ (e.g. REDD+ benefits for those who
contribute to efficiency and effectiveness, versus
benefits for those who have moral rights based on
equity considerations)
 Information: Facts, rather than speaking for
themselves, are selected, interpreted, and put in
context in ways that reflect the interests of the
information provider (e.g. reference level setting)

11. THINKING beyond the canopy
Seeing
REDD+
through
4I’s:
institutions,
interests,
ideas,
information
(Brockhaus and
Angelsen 2012)

12. Applying policy transfer theory to REDD+
regime
 Dolowitz (2009): “Policy transfer is the process by
which the ideas..policies…and practices.. in one
political system are fed into (and used) in the policy-
making arena of another political system”
 many reasons for more and more policies transfer
processes:
- globalization pressures;
- rapid growth of communication means;
- international organizations advocate similar
policies across their member countries;

13. Applying policy transfer theory to
REDD+ regime (2)
Research question: how will the international
REDD+ regime impact national policies and
practices in Central Africa?
Policy transfer process as framework :
 (Dolowitz & Marsh (2000)):
• who is involved?
• Why policy transfer?
• What is transferred?
• From where?
• What are degrees of transfer?
• What are the constraints on transfer?..etc.

14. REDD+ regime and Congo Basin forests
 Central Africa countries are part of vast ecological
complex of the Congo Basin ecosystems, with their
rich flora and wildlife. However, these forests are
vulnerable to several threats, numerous drivers of
deforestation and degradation
 In the framework of COMIFAC, many political
measures have been taken, notably common position
on REDD+ process
 International emerging REDD+ regime is articulate
on: goals, content, instruments, institutions,
ideology, programs and activities

15. REDD+ policy transfer in Central Africa
countries?
 Who is involved in the REDD+ transfer
processes: classical policy transfer agents,
notably elected officials (MPs and mayors); Civil servants (mainly
from environment and forest ministries); Pressure groups (green
and human rights NGOs and networks); Policy entrepreneurs
(Conservation INGOs, consultancy firms, projects and research
institutes); International organizations & cooperation (UNREDD,
World Bank, African Development Bank, Norway..etc);
 What is transferred: Core elements of REDD+ policy,
notably goal (Increased carbon stock), content, instruments
(REDD+ decrees, R-PP); REDD+ institutions (national task force
or coordination); REDD+ programs (REDD+ national strategy,
Investment plan); REDD+ ideologies and information; REDD+
activities ..etc;

16. REDD+ policy transfer in Central
Africa countries?
 Why REDD+ regime transfer? Mitigation needs,
incentives based, countries at different stages enables also
learning, the idea of a global carbon market ‘cake’??
 Transfer typology of REDD+? In Central Africa, there are
three types of REDD+ transfer:
 transfer driven by international donors: DRC, Cameroon,
Congo, CAR ;
 transfer driven by national interests (voluntary): Burundi,
Chad, Rwanda, Sao Tome;
 ambiguous position characterized by no political
commitment of the country and involvement of REDD+
activities: Gabon and Equatorial Guinea (MRV systems);

17. THINKING beyond the canopy
Constraints of REDD+ transfer in
Central Africa
 Burning issue of state of democratic governance in
Central Africa region: according Mo Ibrahim African Governance index
(2013), Sao Tome (11th), Rwanda (15th), Gabon (24th), Cameroon (35th),
Burundi(40th), Congo(43), Guinea(45th), Chad(48th), CAR (49th), DRC (51)
 Risk of REDD+ failure with these governance trends;
 Macroeconomic plans, policies and measures adopted by
each countries based on the valorization of natural
resources: Gabon 2025; Congo 2025, Guinea 2020; DRC 2030,
Cameroon 2035..etc
 REDD+ policy is competing with these objectives

18. THINKING beyond the canopy
*: source: The Economist 2011. Democracy Index 2011:democracy under stress. A report from the Economist Intelligence Unit.
High indexes refer to democracies and low indexes to authoritarian regimes.
Sources: May et al. 2011; Dkamela 2011; Indrarto et al. 2012; Pham et al. 2012; CEDLA and CIFOR 2013; Forest Action and
CIFOR 2013; DAR and CIFOR 2013)
Key policy challenges and regime types (selected countries)
Source: Di Gregorio, M., Brockhaus, M., Cronin, T., Muharrom, E. June 2012. Politics and power in national
REDD+ policy processes. In Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices, 69-90. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
)
Country
Drivers of
deforestation and
forest degradation
Policies that clash whith
REDD+ aims
Policies that support REDD+
Lack of autonomy /
possible capture by
special interests
Democrac
y category
score
(index )*
Level of
centraliz
ation
Indonesia Agriculture (large
scale incl. forest
plantations as
oil palm, small
scale & subsistence),
logging, mining
Pulp and paper; mining
permits in protected
areas; fiscal and non-
fiscal concessions for food
estate and energy estate
development; biofuel
development; land
allocation for oil palm
plantations; MP3IA
Moratorium on Granting of
New Licenses and
Improvement of Natural
Primary Forest and Peatland
Governance (although
considered a ‘weak’ policy due
to the influence of business on
government)
Medium-High
(pressure from large
scale plantations and
logging, pulp and
paper, mining and
electoral campaigns)
Flawed
democracy
(6.53)
Decentral
ised with
tensions
Brazil Agriculture (large-
and small-scale
ranching,
commodity
crops) ,
infrastructure,
selective
logging, mining,
fire
Rural credit for cattle
ranching / infrastructure
development (roads and
dams); land tenure rules
favouring land grabbing;
Forest Code
Forest Code conservation
requirement on private land,
improved enforcement of land-
use policies (incl. protected
areas), economic & ecological
zoning, efforts to certify
producer legality commercial
chains (beef, soy), land
regularization process, real-
time monitoring of
deforestation.
Medium-high (land
speculation, illegal
logging, cattle
ranching, tax evasion,
drug trafficking,
patron-client
relationships and
electoral campaigns)
Flawed
democracy
(7.12)
Federal
system
Cameroon Agriculture (medium-
and small-scale,
subsistence); logging;
mining
Devaluations boosting
logging exports;
infrastructure (roads, rails
and dams); mining and
large-scale agriculture
projects
Law No 2011/08 on Guidelines
for Territorial Planning and
Sustainable Development in
Cameroon
High in the logging
sector (corruption
driving illegal
logging includes
national and
local elite)
Authoritarian
(3.41)
Decentral
ised but
with limits

19. Consequently….
 macroeconomic programs (reflected in ideas
and institutional stickiness)  REDD+ limited
impacts in domestic economy
 However, the ideology/ideas behind REDD+
could probably lead to changes:
a) At strategic level: [ideas, incentives, coordination]
by contributing to the sectorial policies reforms:
Land use master plan; forest, mining, land tenure,
energy, agricultural policies etc.
b) At operational level: [information, incentives,
interests] forest management plans; carbon stock
inventories; high value carbon area; MRV and
socio-environmental safeguards
 Need to review existing policies and
measures and focus on drivers of
deforestation and degradation