Nepal is recognised for its participatory conservation and community-based forest governance policies and programs. But in recent years, government officials and forestry bureaucrats have attempted to restrict the autonomy of forest communities and capture more economic value from forests. This presentation examines whether the current process of REDD policy formation – and the actors involved – will reinforce existing centralised forest governance, or forge more cooperative institutions capable of producing effective, cost-efficient and equitable outcomes for REDD. Bryan Bushley, of the University of Hawaii and East-West Center, gave this presentation on 18 June 2012 at a panel discussion organised by CIFOR and partners at the ISEE 2012 Conference at Rio, 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 II – A policy network perspective’. The research forming the basis of this presentation was conducted collaboratively with Dil Bahadur Khatri and others at ForestAction Nepal.

1. REDD Policymaking in Nepal
Business as Usual or Transformational Change?
Bryan R. Bushley, University of Hawai’i and East-West Center
Dil Bahadur Khatri, ForestAction Nepal
ISEE Conference – Rio de Janeiro
THINKING beyond the canopy
June 18, 2012

2. Overview
 Forest governance and
decentralization in Nepal
 Research questions and
hypotheses
 Methods
 Results
 Conclusions
THINKING beyond the canopy
Photo by Bryan Bushley (2010)

3. Modes of forest governance
 State-centric governance (statism): Government
makes unilateral policy decisions about management
and use of resources (Scholte 2004)
 Polycentric governance: Resource policy decisions
made collectively by a diversity of actors in different
sectors (Ostrom 2009)
 Market governance: Market forces and incentives drive
policy decisions, with participation of other actors
(Cashore 2002)
THINKING beyond the canopy

4. Multilevel governance
THINKING beyond the canopy

5. Network governance
“…An attempt to take into account the increasing
importance of NGOs, the private sector, scientific networks
and international institutions in the performance of various
functions of governance…
The aim of network governance is to create a synergy
between different competences and sources of
knowledge in order to deal with complex and
interlinked problems... governance is accomplished
through decentralized networks of private and public actors
associated to international, national and regional
institutions.”
(Dedeurwaerdere 2005)
THINKING beyond the canopy

6. Forest decentralization in Nepal
State-
centric
Poly-
centri
c
?
THINKING beyond the canopy

7. International Nepal’s involvement in REDD
COP negotiations and related events (SBSTA statements)
World Bank FCPF membership and support
National
REDD Forestry & Climate
Change Cell, RPP process
Community
Carbon forestry piloting (KP‐TGAL project) REDD piloting
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year
THINKING beyond the canopy

8. Business as usual or
transformational change?
Is the current REDD policy process in Nepal promoting…
 Business as usual: A continuation of (re-)centralizing
tendencies of the state, facilitated by engagement in
global market-based mechanisms; OR
 Transformational change: An increase in the quality
and quantity of participation and collaboration, leading to
more cohesive, cooperative institutions of forest
governance involving diverse/new actors in REDD
policy-making processes, resulting in more effective,
efficient, and equitable outcomes.
THINKING beyond the canopy

9. Research hypotheses
 REDD is [a] facilitating the
domination of policy processes
by powerful coalitions of select
government, donor/INGO and
civil society actors, while
marginalizing the voice and role
of other important stakeholders;
and [b] serving as a vehicle for
reinforcing the centralizing
tendencies of the state
 New nodes and modes of
collaboration are emerging, with
the potential to transform existing
institutions and processes of
forest governance
THINKING beyond the canopy

10. Research questions
 Which actors and groups dominate the policy process in terms of
influence (N1), collaboration (N7) and the exchange of information
(N2/N3) and resources (N4/N5)?
 How inclusive is the REDD policy process (i.e., networks) of
important stakeholders outside of the mainstream forestry sector?
Which actors have been marginalized or excluded from the process
and how?
 How centralized is the policy network as a whole, and what does
this bode for further REDD policy development and implementation?
 How are different groups of actors collaborating with each other in
terms of sharing information and resources? Has the REDD policy
process enhanced coordination and collaboration or created new
alliances among or within these groups?
THINKING beyond the canopy

11. Methods
Policy Network Analysis:
• Surveyed 34 organizations (53 listed); 7 networks
• Social network analysis (UCINET and NetDraw)
• Semi-structured interviews
Organization type (& color) 53 34
Identified Interviewed
(receivers) (senders)
Government 15 8
Education/Research 3 2
National NGOs/CBOs 12 10
Business Associations 3 2
INGOs 11 6
Bilateral/Multilateral Donors 9 6
THINKING beyond the canopy

12. Results: Influence (N1, n=53)
Which organizations stand out as especially influential on REDD policies?
(in-degree centrality)
THINKING beyond the canopy

13. Results: Influence (N1, n=34)
Which organizations stand out as especially influential on REDD policies?
(in-degree centrality)
THINKING beyond the canopy

14. Results: Network measures
Network Code  N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N7
Network Description 
Get Scientific
Collaboration
(symmetric)
(symmetric)
resources
resources
Percieved
Exchange
Influence
Give
Measure 
Info.
Info.
Get
Measure Definition 
Number of ties Total number of ties in network 486 314 185 63 80 527
Number of components Total number of distinct groups 1 1 5 15 14 2
Average number of ties per
Average Degree (Centrality) 14.29 9.24 5.44 1.85 2.35 9.94
node
Density % of possible ties existing 43% 28% 17% 6% 7% 35%
Fragmentation % of node pairs with no ties 0% 0% 19% 79% 67% 6%
Reciprocity (Group/Hybrid) % of pairs with mutual ties 33% 27% 14% 9% 0% 31%
Homophily (E-I Index) % of ties among like actors 32% 33% 31% 37% 65% 34%
Centralization (symmetrical) Extent to which nodes are
53% 43%
linked to only one central actor,
Centralization (In-Degree) 58% 68% 64% 22% 30% 51%
without connections among
them
Centralization (Out-Degree) 43% 55% 39% 35% 21% 61%
Proportion of actors in the core
Core-Periphery Ratio 14/20 16/18 16/18 8/26 13/21 12/22
vs. the periphery (C/P)
Betweeness Centralization
?? 0.09 0.21 0.26 0.07 0.18 0.13
Index (Normalized)
THINKING beyond the canopy

15. Results: Info exchange (N2, n=34)
(betweeness centrality)
THINKING beyond the canopy

16. Results: Collaboration (N7, n=34)
(betweeness centrality)
THINKING beyond the canopy

17. Influential actors (nodes) – Top 10
(N1,N2,N7 - degree, betweeness, brokerage)
Average Rank
ACTOR Sum Count (Sum/Count)
REDD Cell 19 9 2.11
FECOFUN 39 9 4.33
WWF 38 8 4.75
RECOFTC 24 7 3.43
DNPWC 28 7 4.00
ICIMOD 33 7 4.71
FA 34 7 4.86
MoLD 24 5 4.80
NEFIN 12 4 3.00
DoF 15 4 3.75
MoEnv 23 4 5.75
DFRS 25 4 6.25
USAID 15 3 5.00
DFID-LFP 19 3 6.33
ANSAB 23 3 7.67
NFA 23 3 7.67
WB-FCPF 25 3 8.33
Winrock 9 2 4.50
KU 6 1 6.00
SDC-NSCFP 7 1 7.00
THINKING beyond the canopy

18. Conclusion: Business as usual or
transformational change?
 REDD policy process dominated by
state actors, with participation of a few
donors/INGOs and influential CSOs
 Exchange of information and
collaboration fairly centralized
 No direct involvement of private sector
 Some significant CSO involvement, but
other important actors excluded
 Some new actors and collaborations,
especially among CSOs, but little
influence on forest policymaking
THINKING beyond the canopy
Photo by Bryan Bushley (2008)

19. Dhanyabad § Thank You
Center for International Forestry Research,
Global Comparative Study on REDD
ForestAction Nepal (Naya Sharma Paudel, Dipak BK, Niru Gurung)
The research presented here is part of the policy component of CIFOR’s global comparative study on REDD
(GCS), led by Maria Brockhaus: http://www.forestsclimatechange.org/global‐comparative‐study‐on‐
redd.html
The methods applied in this study build on work undertaken in COMPON (‘Comparing Climate Change
Policy Networks’, http://compon.org/), led by Jeffrey Broadbent and financially supported by the National
Science Foundation (NSF). Monica Di Gregorio and Maria Brockhaus adapted the COMPON research
‘Protocol for Policy Network Analysis’.
Funding for CIFOR’s research was provided the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, the
Australian Agency for International Development, the UK Department for International Development, the
European Commission, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, the David and Lucile Packard
Foundation, the Program on Forests, and the US Agency for International Development.
Questions or Comments – Bryan Bushley, bushley@hawaii.edu
THINKING beyond the canopy

20. References cited
 Cashore, Benjamin. 2002. Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental
governance: How non-state market-driven (NSMD) governance systems gain
rule-making authority. Governance: An International Journal of Policy,
Administration and Institutions, Vol. 15, No. 4 (October 2002): 503-529.
 Dedeurwaerdere, Tom. 2005. The contribution of network governance to
sustainable development. IDDRI Seminar Paper No. 13. Institute of
Development and Durable International Relations: Paris.
 Ostrom 2009. Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex
economic systems. Nobel Prize lecture, December 8, 2009, Oslo, Norway.
 Scholte, J.A. 2004. Globalization and governance: From statism to polycentrism.
SCGR Working Paper No. 130/04. Center for the Study of Globalization and
Regionalisation, University of Warwick: Coventry, UK.
THINKING beyond the canopy