This presentation by Maria Brockhaus answers the following key questions concerning the GCS study: What makes knowledge generation and uptake successful? What are some of the barriers to sharing knowledge? How well do we know what other people need to know? What are some of the tools we can use to listen and design more effective knowledge products and pathways?

1. Knowledge generation and dissemination in
CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+
Maria Brockhaus
GLF Warsaw, November 2013

2. Key questions
 What makes knowledge generation and uptake

successful?
What are some of the barriers to sharing knowledge?
 How well do we know what other people need to

know? (eg. researchers vs. policy makers; across
sectors)?
What are some of the tools we can use to listen and
design more effective knowledge products and
pathways?
THINKING beyond the canopy

3. 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
THINKING beyond the canopy

4. THINKING beyond the canopy

5. Analysis of national REDD+ policies and
processes in 12 countries since 2009
http://
www.forestsclimatechange.org/global-comparative

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

7. CIFOR’s country profiles
Drivers of Deforestation and
Degradation, Institutional Context and
Path-Dependencies, Political
Economy,
National REDD+ policy proposals and
events
(Brockhaus, M., M. Di Gregorio and S.
Wertz-Kanounnikoff. 2012. Guide for
country profiles: Global Comparative
Study on REDD (GCS-REDD).
Component 1 on National REDD+
Policies and Processes. CIFOR)

8. Successful knowledge
generation and dissemination
 CPs needed as baseline and to understand

country context (before scattered knowledge, CP
guidelines allow for more comprehensive, critical,
and peer-reviewed to ensure quality (and
comparability)
CPs can be considered a success (download
rates, feedback from national policy actors and
entire REDD+ community, unfortunately policy
makers rarely cite …)

9. Successful knowledge generation
and dissemination (2)
 Basis for this success: Engaging with national
partners to
• ensure ownership !
• ensure access to grey literature
• ensure in-country relevance
-> Should allow for dissemination beyond the “usual
suspects”
but how do we know who are these, who are our
boundary partners ? ,
and how do we know that our own networks
are not too outdated ?

10. Who needs to know what in
national REDD+ policy arenas ?
policy network analysis as a tool
to
- identify actors
- identify structural holes
- identify bridges and brokers

11. REDD+
Policy Network
Analysis
(PNA)
•Analysis underway in 8 countries (Brazil, Cameroon, Indonesia,
Nepal, Peru, Papua New Guinea, Tanzania, Vietnam, >1000 interviews
hours)
•Assesses relational and structural aspects of actors and the REDD
arena and considers implications for the 3E+ content of REDD
strategies.

12. REDD+
Policy Network
Analysis
(PNA
Examines questions including:
•Who is involved in national REDD policy making?
•What are their perceptions, interests, and power relations?
•What are their networks of information and influence?
Repeated over time, this method can assess dynamics in power
relations. Deeper insights in REDD+ policy outcomes (carbon
trajectories, livelihoods changes, other co-benefits ) will allow us
to assess policy effectiveness.

13. Indonesia
Fragmentation in Information exchange network
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
Moeliono, M. et al. 2013. Information Networks and Power: Confronting the ‘wicked problem’ of REDD+ in Indonesia. (under
review in Ecology & Society).

14. Brazil
Collaboration Network
We show the importance of
intermediary organizations, that can
bridge different networks parts and are
brokers – we also demonstrate how
the private sector and many
government actors are outsiders.
The triangles represent the main actors in the network, those with the highest
in-degree centrality values.
Gebara, M.F. et al. 2013. Networks, actors and power: A case study of REDD+ in Brazil. (under review in Ecology & Society).

15. Menton, M. et al. 2013. Policy networks
in Peru. Unpublished project report.
Peru
Scientific Information Network
CIFOR
FAO
FAO
IIAP
IIAP
The results from the analysis of
scientific information exchange allow
a snapshot of who is being consulted
Min. and trusted to provide evidence over
Min.
Envt contested issues.
Envt
It also represents a way to evaluate
the impact of organizations carrying
A dense network with different actors (national research institutes, international
out research of REDD+
organisations, governments, national and international NGOs) are sourcesrelevant to REDD+.
information. The most important players constitute one national research institute, Ministry
of Environment, FAO (tied with MINAM) and CIFOR.

16. 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 Efrian Muharrom, Sofi Mardiah, Christine Wairata, 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, Cynthia Maharani