Presented by Maria Brockhaus at a workshop on 'Sharing insights across REDD+ countries: Opportunities and obstacles for effective, efficient, and equitable carbon and non-carbon results' from 21-23 February 2017 in Naypyidaw, Myanmar.

1. An introduction to
CIFOR’s global comparative
study on REDD+ (GCS-REDD+)
Maria Brockhaus Myanmar – February 2017

2. Challenges in national REDD+
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),
access/availibility to data on sectorial contributions to DD, and
identifying an effective policy mix
 needs more than single sectors and single research
disciplines

3. THINKING beyond the canopy
CIFOR’s Global Comparative
Study (GCS-REDD+)
2009-2020
• 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. M1: political science, macro
economics; political economy
approach
M2: socio-economics;
counterfactual approach to
impact assessment
M3: biophysics, natural science;
identifying methods and
approaches to MRV
M4: combining governance and
human geography; landscape
(jurisdictional) approach
M5: innovative knowledge
sharing as central project design
element

5. THINKING beyond the canopy
CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study (GCS-REDD+)
new research countries phase III: Myanmar, Guyana

6. GCS theory of change:
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. Seeing
REDD+
through
4I’s:
institutions,
interests,
ideas,
information
(Brockhaus and
Angelsen 2012)

9. THINKING beyond the canopy
How do the 4 Is hinder or enable
change (1)
 Institutional stickiness: 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. THINKING beyond the canopy
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
Research for CHANGE – from where, towards where, and why?
what enables , what hinders, how to measure
power and
politics
discourses/
beliefs/ logics/
perceptions
incentives
behaviour/LUC
International
National
Local
Multilevel/multiscale
Decision making
State/Private/CSO
(policies, MRV, gender,
adaptation, FPIC, etc)
Economic
instruments and
arrangements
Benefit sharing, PES, 0-
Def, etc
Framing of policy
problems (and
solutions)
REDD+, resilience and
adaptation, 0-def,
sustainability
commitments, etc

12. GCS policy component in detail

13. Approach: investigating politico-economic
constraints to effective national REDD+
strategies (Brockhaus, M., and M. Di Gregorio. 2012. A brief overview: Component 1 on
national REDD+ policies and processes. CIFOR)
 Institutional Context and Path-Dependencies (country
context studies) (Brockhaus, M., M. Di Gregorio and S. Wertz-Kanounnikoff. 2012. Guide
for country profiles: Global Comparative Study on REDD (GCS-REDD))
 Ideology, Policy Discourses and Coalitions for Change
(media and actor stance analysis) (Di Gregorio, M., Price, S., Saunders, C.
and Brockhaus, M. 2012. Code book for the analysis of media frames in articles on REDD. CIFOR)
 Policy Network Structures: Constraints and
Opportunities for effective policy design (policy network
analysis) (see special issue in Ecology and Society 2014)
 REDD+ policy process assessment (e.g. Qualitative
Comparative Analysis (QCA)) (Korhonen-Kurkin et al. 2014, Sehring et al. 2013,
Brockhaus et al. 2015, 2016)

14. Comparative Analysis (Combined Country Cases)
Why: to identify enabling conditions, progress with REDD+ transformational change, inform safeguards and other emerging processes, and to
assess REDD+ policy impact
How: comparative analysis of individual research elements (country profiles, media analyses, etc), and full country cases, qualitative
comparative analysis (QCA) , analysis of data from other modules or global datasets
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toolboxes (e.g. to empower civil society actors to hold state and private sector accountable)
Engagement, Capacity building across and within countries (to strengthen impact pathways through knowledge uptake)
Country case
studies
Cross-country
comparative
analysis
Country profile
Why: To reveal contextual conditions (drivers of deforestation,
institutions, political economy, REDD architecture as discussed)
How: literature review, expert interviews
Discourse Analysis
 Why: To determine what kinds of
actors are shaping public debate
and influencing the policy process.
How: media-based analysis,
stance analysis
REDD+ Policy Content Analysis
Why: To identify and analyse policies and measures and to monitor change
over time
How: Policy content analysis , regular updates of policy monitoring table
Policy Network Analysis
Why: To analyse actors, their relations and the structural conditions in the policy arena
(Actors, Perception, Power, Position)
How: surveys and in-depth interviews
FlexibleElement:SpecificPolicyStudiestocaptureemerging
orcountryspecificissuesandquestions,focusonpolitical
economystudies
National REDD+ Strategy Assessment (Full Country Case Analysis)
Why: To assess proposed policies and measures, to identify obstacles and opportunities to realise REDD+ and secure 3E outcomes +
co-benefits, to provide policy recommendations for improved domestic policy design and implementation
How: Policy context and content analysis of existing REDD national strategies (Actors, Mechanisms, Structures)

15. REDD+ policy context
*country profiles from 13 countries
*specific policy studies
Kambire, H., Djenontin, I., Kabore, A., Djoudi, H., Balinga, M., Zida, M., Assembe-Mvondo, S., Brockhaus, M. The Context
of REDD+ and adaptation to climate change in Burkina Faso: Drivers, agents and institutions. Center for International
Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia. (2016)
Kweka D, Carmenta R, Hyle M, Mustalahti I, Dokken T and Brockhaus M. The context of REDD+ in Tanzania: Drivers,
agents and institutions. Occasional Paper 133. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR. (2015)
Bekele M, Tesfaye Y, Mohammed Z, Zewdie S, Tebikew Y, Brockhaus M, et al. The context of REDD+ in Ethiopia: Drivers,
agents and institutions. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). (2015).
Lestrelin G, Trockenbrodt M, Phanvilay K, Thongmanivong S, Vongvisouk T, Pham TT and Castella J-C. 2013. The context
of REDD+ in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic: Drivers, agents and institutions. Occasional Paper 92. CIFOR, Bogor,
Indonesia.
Mpoyi, A.M., Nyamwoga, F.B., Kabamba, F.M. et S. Assembe-Mvondo, S. 2013. Le contexte de la REDD+ en RD Congo:
Causes, agents et institutions. Document Occasionnel 84. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonésie.
Che Piu, H. and M. Menton. 2013. Contexto de REDD+ en Perú: Motores, actores e instituciones. Documentos
Ocasionales 90. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Piu, H.C., García, T., Enrique, C., Martinez, J., Menton, M. Contexto de REDD+ en Perú Drivers, actores e instituciones. In
press.
Babon, A., Gowae, G.Y. 2013. The Context of REDD+ in Papua New Guinea: Drivers, agents and institutions. In press.
Paudel, N. S., Khatri, D. B., Khanal, D. R., Karki, R. 2013. The context of REDD+ in Nepal: Drivers, agents, and
institutions. Occasional Paper 81. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Mpoyi, A.M., Nyamwoga, F.B., Kabamba, F.M. et Assembe-Mvondo, S. 2013. Le contexte de la REDD+ en RD Congo:
Causes, agents et institutions. Document Occasionnel 84. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonésie.
Sitoe, A., Salomão, A., & Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S. 2012. The context of REDD+ in Mozambique: Drivers, agents, and
institutions. Occasional paper 79. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Indrarto, G. B., Murharjanti, P., Khatarina, J., Pulungan, I., Ivalerina, F., Rahman, J., Prana, M. N., Resosudarmo, I. A.
P., Muharrom, E. 2012. The context of REDD+ in Indonesia. Working Paper 92. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Pham, T. T., Moeliono, M., Nguyen, T. H., Nguyen, H. T., Vu, T. H. 2012. The context of REDD+ in Vietnam: Drivers,
agents and institutions. Occasional paper 75. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Dkamela, G.P. 2011. The context of REDD+ in Cameroon: drivers, agents, and institutions. Occasional paper 57. CIFOR,
Bogor, Indonesia.
May, P.H., Millikan, B. 2010. The context of REDD+ in Brazil: drivers, agents, and institutions. Occasional paper 55.
CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

16. REDD+ and policy discourses
*media-based analysis with predefined codebook
in 10 countries
*”REDD+ politics in the media” – working paper
series
• Gebara, M.F., May, P.H., Carmenta, R., Calixto, B., Brockhaus, M., Di Gregorio, M. 2017. Framing REDD+ in the Brazilian national media: how discourses
evolved amid global negotiation uncertainties. Climatic Change: 1-14
• Khatri, D.B., Pham, T.T., Di Gregorio, M. et al. Climatic Change (2016) 138: 309. REDD+ politics in the media: a case from Nepal. Climatic Change 138, no.
1-2 (2016): 309-323.
• Cronin T, Santoso L, Di Gregorio M, Brockhaus M, Mardiah S, Muharrom E. 2016. Moving consensus and managing expectations: media and REDD+ in
Indonesia. Climatic Change. 137(1):57-70.
• Babon, A., Mcintyre, D., Sofe, R. 2012. REDD+ politics in the media: a case study from Papua New Guinea. Working Paper 97. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
• Khatri, D. H., Bhushal, R. P., Paudel, N. S., Gurung, N. 2012. REDD+ politics in the media: A case study from Nepal. Working Paper 96. CIFOR, Bogor,
Indonesia.
• Alvarez, J. P., Montero, D. F., Barrantes, E. B., Takahashi, T. P., Menton, M. 2012. Políticas redd+ y los medios de comunicación: Caso de estudio en el
perú. Working Paper 101. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
• Kengoum, D.F. 2011. REDD+ politics in the media: a case study from Cameroon. Working Paper 51. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
• May, P.H., Calixto, B., Gebara, M.F. 2011. REDD+ politics in the media: a case study from Brazil. Working Paper 55. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
• Pham, T.T. 2011. REDD+ politics in the media: a case study from Vietnam. Working Paper 53. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
• Cronin, T. and Santoso, L. 2010. REDD+ politics in the media: A case study from Indonesia. Working Paper 49. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

17. THINKING beyond the canopy
REDD+
policy networks
*social network analysis in 9 countries
comparative studies, journal articles, working papers:
2014 special issue in Ecology & Society with policy network
analysis country cases from 7 countries as well as global
comparative analysis
Rantalla, S. 2012. Knowledge and brokerage in REDD+ policy making:
A Policy Networks Analysis of the case of Tanzania. Working Paper.
Harvard Kennedy School and CIFOR. Moeliono, M., Santoso, L.,
Gallemore, C., 2013. REDD+ policy networks in Indonesia. CIFOR

18. THINKING beyond the canopy
Selected global comparative
publications
 Loft LA, Pham TT, Wong G, Brockhaus MA, Le DN, Tjajadi JS, Luttrell CE. 2016. Risks to REDD+: potential pitfalls for policy design and implementation.
Environmental Conservation. 1-12.
 Vijge MJ, Brockhaus M, Di Gregorio M, Muharrom E. "Framing national REDD+ benefits, monitoring, governance and finance: A comparative analysis of
seven countries." Global Environmental Change 39 (2016): 57-68.
 Brockhaus M., Korhonen-Kurki, K., Sehring, J., Di Gregorio, M., Assembe-Mvondo, S., Babon, A., Bekele, M., Gebara, M.F., Khatri, D.B., Kambire, H.,
Kengoum, F., Kweka, D., Menton, M., Moeliono, M., Paudel, N.S., Pham, T.T., Resosudarmo, I.A.P., Sitoe, A., Wunder, S., Zida, M. 2016. REDD+,
transformational change and the promise of performance-based payments: A qualitative comparative analysis. Climate Policy, in press.
 Korhonen-Kurki K, Brockhaus M, Bushley B, Babon A, Gebara MF, Kengoum F, et al. 2016. Coordination and cross-sectoral integration in REDD+:
experiences from seven countries. Climate and Development. 8(5):458-71.
 Di Gregorio, M., Brockhaus, M., Cronin, T., Muharrom, E., Mardiah, S., & Santoso, L., 2015. Deadlock or Transformational Change? Exploring Public
Discourse on REDD+ across Seven Countries. Accepted in Global Environmental Politics.
 Brockhaus, M., Di Gregorio, M., Mardiah, S. 2014. Governing the design of national REDD+: An analysis of the power of agency. Forest Policy and
Economics 49, 23-33.
 Angelsen, A. and T.K. Rudel. 2013. Designing and implementing effective REDD+ policies: A forest transition approach. Review Environmental
Economics and Policy 7(1): 91-113.
 Brockhaus M, Di Gregorio M and Mardiah S. 2013. Governing the design of national REDD +: An analysis of the power of agency. Forest Policy and
Economics. In press.
 Di Gregorio M, Brockhaus M, Cronin T, Muharrom E, Santoso L, Mardiah S and Büdenbender M. 2013. Equity and REDD+ in the media: a comparative
analysis of policy discourses. Ecology and Society 18(2): 39.
 Korhonen-Kurki K, Brockhaus M, Duchelle A, Atmadja S, Thu Thuy P, and Schofield L. 2013. Multiple levels and multiple challenges for measurement,
reporting and verification of REDD+. International Journal of The Commons, 7(2).
 Korhonen-Kurki K., Sehring J., Di Gregorio M., and Brockhaus M.; 2013. Enabling Factors for REDD+: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Climate Policy.
 Larson, A.M., Brockhaus, M., Sunderlin, W.D., Duchelle, A., Babon, A., Dokken, T., Pham, T.T., Resosudarmo, I.A.P., Selaya, G., Awono, A., Huynh, T.-B.,
2013. Land tenure and REDD+: The good, the bad and the ugly. Global Environmental Change 23, 678-689.
 Luttrell, C., L. Loft, F. M. Gebara, D. Kweka, M. Brockhaus, A. Angelsen and W. Sunderlin 2013. Who should benefit from REDD+? Rationales and
Realities. Ecology and Society. In press.
 Pham TT, Brockhaus M, Wong G, Dung LN, Tjajadi JS, Loft L, Luttrell C and Assembe S. 2013. Approaches to benefit sharing: A preliminary comparative
analysis of 13 REDD+ countries. Working Paper 108. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

19. Some key findings from phase 1
and 2

20. Major events in REDD+ policy arenas
Brockhaus, M., Di Gregorio, M., 2014. National REDD+ policy networks: From
cooperation to conflict. Ecology & Society. Forthcoming.

21. 2010 2011 2012
29 November – 10
December
COP 16 in Cancun
27 May
Signing of letter of
Intent between
Norway and
Indonesia of USD 1
billion pledged,
conditional and
performance
20 September
Presidential Decree
19/2010;
REDD+ Task Force
September
Draft of National
Strategy
December
Central Kalimantan selected as
the pilot province for
implementation of the
Indonesia-Norway partnership
September
- Presidential Decree
25/11;task Force for
development of REDD+
Agency
- MoU between REDD+ Task
Force and Central
Kalimantan Provinces
- Presidential Decree 61/2011:
National plan to reduce GHG
emission (RAN GRK)
28 November-9 December
COP 17 in Durban
January – April
Continued bilateral
cooperation incl. GIZ, KOICA,
AUSAID and civil society
participation
March – April
Rewriting of REDD+
national Strategy
20 May
Presidential Instruction
10/2011:Moratorium on
granting new forestry licenses
and improvement of natural
primary forest and peatland
governance
30 June
End of REDD+ task
Force
August
Final Draft of REDD+
National Strategy
May and November
Revision 2 and 3 on
Moratorium map
January
Extension of
Indonesian
REDD+ task
force mandate
2013
31 August 2013
Presidential Decree
62/2013: REDD+
Agency
May
Central Kalimantan
REDD+ Strategy
11 – 23 November
COP 19 in Poland
26 November - &
December
COP 18 in Doha
May
Extension of
moratorium of
new forestry
licenses
April
Court decision on Adat
Act Community Forest.
MK 35.
March
KPK and 12
Ministries Mou on
Joint
Implementation
August
Act No. 18/2013 on
Deforestation
Prevention and
Eradication
2014 2015
21 January 2015
Presidential Decree No. 16/2015 on
Ministry of Environment and Forestry:
REDD+ Agency and DNPI dismissal
September 2014
Governmental Regulation No.
71/2014 on Peat Ecosystem
Protection and Management
October 2014
REDD+ Academy was launched in
Yogyakarta
October 2014
merge between Ministry of Environment and
Ministry of Forestry
December 2014
COP 20 in Lima,
Peru
July 2014
Indonesia’s forest cover lost report by University of
Maryland, twice from Brazil in in 2012 (840.000 ha) –
Nature Climate Change Journal
December 2014
AMAN submitted 4,822 M Ha of Adat Law
Community Area map to the government
December 2014
Minister of Environment and Forestry
Regulation No. P.97/Menhut-II/2014 on
Licensing and Non Licensing Authority
September 2014
Law No. 23/2014 on Local Government
06 July 2012
- Government
Regulation No.
60/2012 on Changes
towards GR no.
10/2010
- Government
Regulation No.
61/2012 on Changes
towards GR no.
24/2010
June
REDD+ national
strategy script
published:
SK No.02/SATGAS
REDD+/09/2012
23 February 2015
Dismissal of UKP4 based on Presidential
Regulation No 26/2015: Several tasks of this
institution were merged into Cabinet
Secretariat and Presidential staff
24 September 2015
Submission of
Intended Nationally
Determined
Contribution (INDC) to
UNFCCC
13 May 2015
Presidential Instruction No. 8/2015 on
Moratorium Extension followed by the
Minister of Environmental and Forestry
Decree No. 141/MENLHKVII/2015
concerning the Indicative Moratorium Map
(IMM) Revision VIII
08 January 2015
Presidential Regulation No.2/2015 on Mid
Term National Plan
July 2014
Internal Affairs Minister Regulation No. 52/2014
on Guideline of Adat Law Community
Recognition and Protection
January 2014
Governmental Regulation No. 43/2014 on
Village
15 January 2014
Law No. 6/2014 on Village
July 2014
Presidential Election
2016
06 January 2016
Establishment of Peat
Restoration Agency
through Presidential
Decree No. 1/2016
14 April 2016
President statement on all
palm oil and mining
moratorium
31 May 2016
Improve cooperation of
REDD+ with Norway;
Indonesia’s president
statement towards
Norwegian Foreign
Minister
03 February 2016
Norway through its
Minister of Climate and
Environment expressed
dissatisfaction about lack
of progress of REDD+
Indonesia
Brief process overview in Indonesia :
key REDD+ policy events

22. THINKING beyond the canopy
2010 2011 20122008 2013 2014
REDD+ in Indonesia
Institutional evolution
2015
DNPI
REDD+ Task
Force I
REDD+ Task
Force II
REDD+ Task
Force III
REDD+
Agency
Min of
Env &
Min of
For
Presidential
election
Dismissal of
REDD+
Agency,
DNPI, UKP4
2016
“Six years into the partnership, we are now impatient to see more results on the ground,”
“We are very satisfied with the dialogue we have had [and] with the groundwork that has been put in place but I don’t think anyone can
be satisfied when we see the fires last year, when we see continued deforestation [and] when we see continued peat conversion,”
(Norwegian Climate and Environment Minister - Vidar Helgesen)

23. Power of Agency
(Brockhaus et al 2014 Governing the design of REDD+)
 Who speaks business-as-usual, who
speaks transformational change ?
Frame analysis, Actor groups in the main BAU and TC
discourse coalition (no. actor stances expressed in the
coalition = frequency), No. of coalition actors
 How powerful are these voices ?
 Reputational power index
𝑅 𝑝 =
𝑖=1
𝑛 𝑝
𝑖𝑑
𝑖
𝑛 𝑝 𝑛−1
 No. of coaltition group members * reputational power
index, Reputational power index of discourse coalition
𝑅 𝑑 = sum of (No. of coalition group members x
reputational power index)

24. Power of which agency?
 State speaks BAU, often represents business interests,
rights are framed around global equity issues
 CSO often call for transformational change, with focus
on rights issues
 In most countries, BAU is much more powerful than TC
 No actors speak “root causes of deforestation” ….
highly problematic for REDD+ .. !!!

25. 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 clusters
Homophily strong in national government cluster
Only one bridge
Indonesia
Fragmentation in Information exchange network
Moeliono, M., C. Gallemore, L. Santoso, M. Brockhaus, and M. Di Gregorio. May 2014. Information networks and
power: confronting the "wicked problem" of REDD+ in Indonesia. Ecology and Society 19(2): 9.

26. THINKING beyond the canopy
Measuring progress with REDD+
towards transformational change
 Key findings:
• Context matters: Already initiated institutional change allows for faster
REDD+ design , but either forest pressure needs to be high or effective
forest legislation, policy and governance in place
• Actor-related factors of national ownership and transformational
coalitions crucial: but could only be effective in an enabling institutional
setting (Korhonen-Kurki et al. 2014. Enabling factors for establishing REDD+ in a context of weak governance.
Climate Policy, 14(2), 167-186.)
• BAU actor coalitions are powerful, main drivers of deforestation not
yet tackled, but no REDD+ without  would need state with
‘societal welfare rationale’ to counterbalance deforestation-driving
‘profit rationale’… (Obidzinski et al. 2014. Oil palm plantation investments in Indonesia’s forest frontiers:
limited economic multipliers and uncertain benefits for local communities. Environment, Development and Sustainability,
1-20; Salvini, G et al. (2014). How countries link REDD+ interventions to drivers in their readiness plans: implications for
monitoring systems. Environmental Research Letters, 9(7), 074004.)

27. 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), 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 Cynthia Maharani, Efrian Muharrom, Sofi Mardiah, Christine Wairata, Bimo Dwisatrio, 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,

28. We acknowledge the support from:
the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad), the Australian
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), the European Union (EU), the
UK Government, USAID, the International Climate Initiative (IKI) of the German
Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and
Nuclear Safety (BMUB), Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC) , and the CGIAR
Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (CRP-FTA) with financial
support from the CGIAR Fund.
& all research partners and individuals
that have contributed to the GCS research
Thanks

29. 2008
2012
2009
CIFOR’s 3rd
edited volume
on REDD

30. Country
Profiles
Media-based discourse
analyses
Info Briefs
Working Papers Journal Articles
GCS analysis of policies and processes