How pervasive are REDD+ debates in national media, who is driving the debate, and what is being advocated by each actor/group? CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study used media-based discourse analysis across six countries to identify policy coalitions that could or could not move the policy design for REDD+ towards transformational change. Tim Cronin gave this presentation on 18 June 2012 at a panel discussion organised by CIFOR and partners at the ISEE 2012 Conference, 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 I – An overview’. For more information, visit http://www.cifor.org/events/rio20/

1. Deadlock or transformational change: a
comparison of REDD+ politics in the media
Monica Di Gregorio, Maria Brockhaus, Tim Cronin, Efrian Muharrom, Sofi Mardiah, Levania Santoso
THINKING beyond the canopy 18 June 2012, ISEE, Rio de Janeiro

2. Six countries
Nepal
Vietnam
Peru PNG
Brazil Indonesia
THINKING beyond the canopy

3. Research questions:
 How pervasive are REDD+ debates in national media
and how are these debates framed?
 Who are the main actors driving these debates and what
is their vision of REDD+?
 What are the dominant and minority coalitions and do
they advocate business as usual or transformational
change?
THINKING beyond the canopy

4. Theory & methods
Analysis of policy coalitions
 Transformational coalitions (vs BAU): embrace discourse on the
drivers of deforestation and propose solutions to root causes
 Dominant coalition (vs minority): broad, inclusive and featuring
political and economic elites
Methods
 Sources:
• 3 national newspapers per country
• December 2005 (COP11) – December 2010
• Keyword search to identify REDD+ related articles
 Content analysis
• Standardised codebook to code media frames (quantitative)
• Manual coding on ‘stances’ of policy actors (qualitative)
THINKING beyond the canopy

5. Stances -
OTHER
10. GROWTH
Indonesia
9. CAPACITY BUILDING
8. GOVERNANCE
7. RIGHTS
6. REDD+ Agree
5. CO‐BENEFITS Disagree
4. CENTRALISED
3. MARKET
2. DEVELOPED WORLD
1. SOLUTION
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
S01. REDD (or at least forests) should be part of the global solution to climate change [SOLUTION]
S02. REDD should be financed by developed countries [DEVELOPED WORLD]
S03. REDD should be financed by a carbon offsetting market mechanism [MARKET]
S04. REDD programs should be formulated and managed at the national level [CENTRALISED]
S05. REDD should provide co‐benefits apart from combating climate change [CO‐BENEFITS]
S06. REDD should incorporate avoided degradation, conservation and reforestation, not just avoided deforestation [REDD+]
S07. REDD risks to reduce access to forest resources and harm traditional forest users [RIGHTS]
S08. REDD will require major governance and institutional reform [GOVERNANCE]
S09. REDD will require major technical capacity building [CAPACITY BUILDING]
S10. REDD should not compromise Indonesia's economic growth, including that generated through agricultural expansion [GROWTH]
THINKING beyond the canopy

6. Stances - Indonesia
Farmers federation or group
National /Local International/
Foreign
Business association
National private business
Political Party ORANGE lighter orange
S05 [CO-BENEFITS]
S10 [GROWTH] Participatory RED lighter red
S09 [CAPACITY BUILDING] Venue*
NGO GREEN lighter green
Multinational corporation Domestic ENGO or ENGO coalition
International research centre or think tank Business YELLOW lighter yellow/gold
S03 [MARKET]
National level state and bureaucratic actors
International ENGO
National research centre or think tank Government BLUE lighter blue
S06 [REDD+]
Sub-national or local state actor Research PURPLE lighter purple
Intergovernmental organization or body
S04 [CENTRALISED] Other BROWN lighter brown
S02 [DEVELOPED WORLD]
Actors: Circles
S01 [SOLUTION] S07 [RIGHTS]
Stances: Squares (WHITE)
S08 [GOVERNANCE] Line width: Denotes strength of tie (# of statements made)
Agree statements: BLUE solid line
Domestic NGO or NGO coalition
Disagree statements: RED dashed line
Non-Indonesian state actor
Agree and disagree statements: BLACK dotted line
International NGO
Indigenous organization
THINKING beyond the canopy

7. Indonesia
Domestic ENGO or ENGO coalition
International research centre or think tank
3 [MARKET]
National level state and bureaucratic actors
International ENGO
National research centre or think tank
Sub-national or local state actor
Intergovernmental organization or body
S04 [CENTRALISED]
S02 [DEVELOPED WORLD]
S01 [SOLUTION] S07 [RIGHTS]
S08 [GOVERNANCE]
Domestic NGO or NGO coalition
Non-Indonesian state actor
International NGO
THINKING beyond
Indigenous organization the canopy

8. Comparative results: Identical stances
 REDD (or at least forests) should be part of the global
solution to climate change [SOLUTION]
 REDD should be financed by developed countries
[DEVELOPED WORLD]
 REDD will require major governance and institutional
reform [GOVERNANCE]
 REDD should be financed by a carbon offsetting market
mechanism (inc. VCAs) [MARKET]
THINKING beyond the canopy

9. Comparative results: Identical stances
 REDD (or at least forests) should be part of the global
solution to climate change [SOLUTION]
 REDD should be financed by developed countries
[DEVELOPED WORLD]
 REDD will require major governance and institutional
reform [GOVERNANCE]
 REDD should be financed by a carbon offsetting market
mechanism (inc. VCAs) [MARKET]
THINKING beyond the canopy

10. Same issue, different framing
 Indonesia: REDD risks to dispossess/reduce access to forest
resources and harm traditional forest users [RIGHTS]
 Brazil: REDD should include indigenous and forest dwelling
communities in discussions and decision making [INCLUSION]
 PNG: REDD funding (inc. VCAs) should benefit landowners for
protecting forests [LANDOWNERS]
 Peru: If REDD is to go ahead, it is necessary to address land rights,
corruption and bureaucracy
 Nepal: Money earned through REDD should benefit local, poor and
indigenous communities [COMMUNITIES]
THINKING beyond the canopy

11. Unique stances and debates
 Indonesia: REDD programs should be formulated and managed at
the national level [CENTRALISED]
 Brazil: REDD will enable us to value the environmental services of
forests [PES]
 PNG: REDD funding (inc. VCAs) will encourage corruption and
exploitation [EXPLOITATION]
 Vietnam: Environmental services from forest should be financed by
domestic beneficiaries [USER PAYS]
 Peru: Natural forests should not be valued alongside plantations;
REDD threatens biodiversity [NO PLANTATIONS]
THINKING beyond the canopy

12. Conclusion
 Dominant coalitions =
→ Business as usual
→ Broad agreement
 Minority coalitions =
→Transformational
→ Contested issues (e.g. rights)
 Moving coalitions from minority to dominant will require
stronger engagement by national state actors on difficult
and contentious issues
THINKING beyond the canopy

13. Acknowledgements
This 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.
THINKING beyond the canopy

14. Thank you!
www.cifor.cgiar.org
THINKING beyond the canopy