dead-lock or transformational change – a comparison of redd+ politics in the media
DESCRIPTION
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/TRANSCRIPT
THINKING beyond the canopy
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
18 June 2012, ISEE, Rio de Janeiro
THINKING beyond the canopy
Six countries
Nepal
Vietnam
IndonesiaBrazilPeru PNG
THINKING beyond the canopy
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
Theory & methods Analysis of policy coalitions Transformational coalitions (vs BAU): embrace discourse on the
drivers of deforestation and propose solutions to root causesDominant 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
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]
Stances -Indonesia
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1. SOLUTION
2. DEVELOPED WORLD
3. MARKET
4. CENTRALISED
5. CO‐BENEFITS
6. REDD+
7. RIGHTS
8. GOVERNANCE
9. CAPACITY BUILDING
10. GROWTH
OTHER
Agree
Disagree
THINKING beyond the canopy
Stances - Indonesia
National level state and bureaucratic actors
Sub-national or local state actor
Farmers federation or group
Indigenous organization
Domestic NGO or NGO coalition
Domestic ENGO or ENGO coalition
International NGO
International ENGO
National private business
Multinational corporation
Business association
National research centre or think tank
International research centre or think tank
Intergovernmental organization or body
Non-Indonesian state actor
S01 [SOLUTION]
S02 [DEVELOPED WORLD]
S03 [MARKET]
S04 [CENTRALISED]
S05 [CO-BENEFITS]
S06 [REDD+]
S07 [RIGHTS]
S08 [GOVERNANCE]
S09 [CAPACITY BUILDING]
S10 [GROWTH]
National /Local International/ Foreign
Political Party ORANGE lighter orange
Participatory Venue*
RED lighter red
NGO GREEN lighter green
Business YELLOW lighter yellow/gold
Government BLUE lighter blue
Research PURPLE lighter purple
Other BROWN lighter brown
Actors: CirclesStances: Squares (WHITE)Line width: Denotes strength of tie (# of statements made)Agree statements: BLUE solid lineDisagree statements: RED dashed lineAgree and disagree statements: BLACK dotted line
THINKING beyond the canopy
Indonesia
National level state and bureaucratic actors
Sub-national or local state actor
Indigenous organization
Domestic NGO or NGO coalition
Domestic ENGO or ENGO coalition
International NGO
International ENGO
National research centre or think tank
International research centre or think tank
Intergovernmental organization or body
Non-Indonesian state actor
S01 [SOLUTION]
S02 [DEVELOPED WORLD]
3 [MARKET]
S04 [CENTRALISED]
S07 [RIGHTS]
S08 [GOVERNANCE]
THINKING beyond the canopy
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
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
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
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
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
AcknowledgementsThis 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
www.cifor.cgiar.orgwww.cifor.cgiar.org
Thank you!