Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.

Policy Network Analysis on REDD+

36 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

Presented by Pham Thu Thuy (CIFOR) at "Knowledge Sharing Workshop: REDD+ Policy and Politics in DRC" on 16-17 Oct 2019

Veröffentlicht in: Umweltschutz
  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

Policy Network Analysis on REDD+

  1. 1. Policy Network Analysis on REDD+ A preliminary results of Indonesia’s PNA study phase 3* Bimo Dwi Satrio, Moira Moeliono, Deandra Atmojo, Muhammad Ichsan *a work in progress, please do not cite
  2. 2. Networks are everywhere
  3. 3. Background • Quantitative social network analysis techniques -a method used to investigate social structures- is the foundation of policy network analysis (Börzel 1997, Wasserman and Faust 1994). • “A policy network is constituted from the patterns of resource interdependencies between policy actors. Resource interdependence means organizations have to bargain with one another if they are to secure policy outcomes” (Smith 1997) • REDD+ envisioned as network governance – multistakeholders consultations – building a REDD+ network
  4. 4. Policy network analysis of REDD+ policy processes • “National REDD+ policy progress has so far been slower than expected” (Brockhaus et al. 2014) • “A policy network approach can support to investigate some key determinants of policy making REDD+ policy domain” (Ibid et al. 2014). • Survey tools and data collection: o Organizational survey: stances, networks, policy and protest events o Semi structured interviews: in-depth discussions on four topics
  5. 5. Indonesia’s PNA study Phase 3 • Review 2015 survey (130 & 83 actors) and other docs + expert panel (Govt., Buss., NGOs, & Univ.) for policy domain: 55 core organizations (53 out of 55 interviewed): 96% response rate • 53 actors participated in survey, network, and semi- structured interview & 2 rejected • 10 out of 15 org types • June to October 2019 Org. Category Total participation Government, state agencies and expressly political organizations 12 National research Institutes (domestic) 3 National business organizations (domestic) 7 Domestic environmental NGOs 8 Domestic NGOs with other interests 1 International Environmental NGOs and Networks 9 International NGOs with other interests 1 Intergovernmental Organizations 5 International research institutes 2 Foreign government agencies 5 Total 53
  6. 6. REDD+ progress in Indonesia 2018-2019 2017-2018 Ministry of Environment and Forestry released four Ministerial Regulation No. 70- 73/2017 on REDD+ 14 August 2018 WRI released article on Indonesia’s deforestation (tree cover loss) dropped 60 percent in 2017 16 February 2019 Indonesia reports reduced deforestation, triggering first carbon payment from Norway 07 August 2019 Inpres No. 5/2019 Permanent termination for new licenses and improvement of primary forest and peatland governance 12 June 2019 Perpres No. 39/2019 Indonesia One Data Policy 10 October 2019 Launching BPDLH for REDD+ financing
  7. 7. REDD+ progress in Indonesia • REDD+ is now managed by MoEF as a results of streamlined bureaucracy • Indonesia ratified the Paris Agreement (UU No.16/2016 and follows the Katowice Package • Indonesia 1st NDC: 17.2% out of 29% ER from forestry sector; 2 out of 4 mitigation activities are under REDD+ scheme • REDD+ architecture are ready: REDD+ Nat.Stra., FREL, NFMS/MRV, SIS, SRN, PSA on Env. Fund Mgmt. • Indonesia is now in the third phase with pending payment
  8. 8. Policy Events 1. PP No.46/2017: Environmental Economic Instruments 2. Inpres No. 6/2017: Moratorium of primary forest and peatland governance and new license issuance  Inpres No.5/2019: permanence 3. PermenLHK No. P.70/2017: Technical guidance on REDD+ implementation 4. Inpres No. 8/2018: Moratorium and evaluation of licenses and productivity enhancement of oil palm
  9. 9. Influential actors Diagram 3. N1 degree centrality (most influential actors) of PNA 3 Diagram 1. N1All degree centrality (most influential actors) of PNA1 Diagram 2. N1All degree centrality (most influential actors) of PNA2
  10. 10. Influential Actors Org_id N1 Indeg Govt 50 Govt 39 Donor 36 Local NGO 34 Govt 33 Intergovt 33 Int. Rsch 32 Intergovt 30 Local NGO 29 Int. NGO 29 Diagram 4. N1All Eigenvector of PNA 3 Org_id N1 Eigenvector Govt 0.199 Local NGO 0.198 Intergovt 0.185 Int. Rsch 0.18 Intergovt 0.178 Local Business 0.176 Local thinkthank 0.175 Local Business 0.171 Donor 0.168 Local NGO 0.168
  11. 11. Information Exchange Diagram 6. N2 betwenness centrality Diagram 5. N2 closeness centrality
  12. 12. Scientific Information Org_id N3 Indeg Int. Rsch 27 Govt. 19 Local Rsch 15 Int. NGO 15 Int. Rsch 14 Intergovt 12 Intergovt 10 Intergovt 9 Int. NGO 7 Donor 6 Diagram 7. N3 degree centrality
  13. 13. Resources exchange Diagram 8. N4 degree centrality (resources given to) Org.Id N4 Indeg Govt. 11 Int. Rsch 6 Local Rsch 5 Int. NGO 5 Govt 4 Local Rsch 4 Local NGO 4 Int. NGO 4 Int. Rsch 4 Govt. 3 Org.Id N5 Indeg Donor 16 Donor 7 Donor 7 Intergovt. 6 Intergovt. 5 Local NGO 4 Donor 4 Intergovt 4 Int. NGO 3 Intergovt. 3 Diagram 9. N5 degree centrality (resources received from)
  14. 14. Disagreement Org.Id N6 Indeg Govt. 13 Local Business 8 Local Business 8 Local NGO 6 Local NGO 5 Govt. 4 Govt. 4 Govt. 3 Govt. 3 Govt. 3 Diagram 10. N6 degree centrality
  15. 15. Collaboration • Collaboration towards multistakeholder although REDD+ process progressing in the background Diagram 11. N7 degree centrality
  16. 16. Preliminary Findings • Two ministries related to CC are influential: one control the land (forest area), the other control the national budget planning • Donors related to REDD+, NGO related to indigenous people, ministry related to RBP are among the top five influential actors • However, eigenvector calculation shows that those NGO with speed dial to minister receive extra influence while intergovernmental org. who promise to disburse REDD+ resource also gaining popularity
  17. 17. Preliminary Findings • Both the REDD+ authority and its ‘EO’ have control and access to REDD+ information for other orgs. • Forestry research org. and REDD+ authority referred to as the most trusted and reliable source of REDD+ scientific info which also received the most funding to provide the info • Meanwhile, the REDD+ donors keep their commitment to support resources although RBP is not yet implemented: “money for info not carbon” • Orgs are simultaneously disagreeing and collaborating with REDD+ authority
  18. 18. Future prospects for REDD+ in Indonesia • Concentrated power of REDD+ but multistakeholder is visible • REDD+ has inspired policy reform and enhancement of forest and natural resource governance (Dir. Mitigation, MoEF) • Fundings is in the pipeline: Indonesia-Norway, FCPF CF, FCPF BioCF, GCF, positive incentive, Village fund, Natbudget, and others • Symbiosis mutualism: is collaboration is more profiting than competition? • 2020 may become the new momentum for REDD+ as Paris Agreement kick off • However, business sector related to carbon trading is marginalized in the latest REDD+ under NDC regime? How the role of private sector can help reduce emission?
  19. 19. cifor.org forestsnews.cifor.org ForestsTreesAgroforestry.org THANK YOU *A WORK IN PROGRESS, PLEASE DO NOT CITE