The international initiative to combat deforestation and forest degradation, known as REDD+, was put on the DRC agenda following actors’ policy discourse aimed at convincing policy-makers of its effectiveness. This paper uses discursive institutionalism (DI) as a theoretical and analytical framework to analyse a set of selected policy documents on REDD+ issue and to assess the effects of policy discourse on deforestation reduction governance in DRC. From an empirical standpoint, interviews with key actors involved in the DRC REDD+ processes and field observations show that four main types of discourse accompanied the adoption of REDD+ in the DRC: a discourse promoting REDD+ through its forest conservation component, as a policy instrument that would bring in significant financial resources to the DRC forest-related state bureaucracies, a discourse that considers REDD+ as an efficient mean of reducing poverty while promoting sustainability through “green development”, a discourse presenting REDD+ as a way of reducing marginalisation of local communities and indigenous peoples by recognising their customary rights, and finally, a discourse promoting REDD+ as a tool for territorial planning and governance. In addition, the paper points out strong links between DRC REDD+ policy discourse and three types of governance approaches: organisational and fiduciary governance, territorial governance, local development and benefit sharing governance. Our analysis also shows that political discourse has played a significant role in the adoption of substantial policies aimed at reducing deforestation in DRC.
Tag: governance
A Political Ecology and Economy of Key Trends in International Forest Governance
This chapter identifies key trends in International Forest Governance1 (IFG) over the last decade. The trends are analysed through a combined lens of political ecology and political economy that considers how the shifting coalitions of actors, interests, ideas, and institutions in IFG have intersected with broader political and economic trends across global and regional scales, and how these international dynamics interact with different national and local contexts. Overall, we find that IFG continues to expand in scope and complexity to address an increasingly wide range of forest-related environmental, social, and economic priorities. At the same time, it faces ongoing contentions over who writes the rules, for what purpose, and for whose benefit. In general, we see a growing expansion of market-based approaches, in tandem with the adoption of increasingly ambitious global performance targets and the financialization of forest values. These trends exist in tension with efforts to decentralize and devolve forest and land rights to Indigenous peoples and local communities. One key trend at the global level is the expansion of decision-making on forests within institutions, agreements, and processes outside the forestry sector. This includes a ‘climatization’ of forest policy within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), for example through the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) mechanism, as well as the growth of public and private markets for forest carbon. Largely in parallel, it includes rising ambitions under the United Nations (UN) Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to halt biodiversity loss and expand protected areas while protecting Indigenous rights. At the same time, other institutions, agreements, and processes have aimed expressly to bridge sectoral divides, such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the promotion of landscape approaches in the public and private sector as a strategy for integrating the governance of forest, agriculture, climate, and other sectors. While these various global initiatives often struggle to reach consensus on binding commitments and finance, an increasing array of actors have turned to regional, bilateral, and unilateral approaches to pursue their particular interests among smaller ‘coalitions of the willing’. This is observed within and across the Global North and South. This bypassing of international negotiation has recently gained momentum with the passage of the European Union’s (EU) Deforestation Regulation 2023/1115 (EUDR). The EUDR bans the import of forest risk commodities such as palm oil and soy unless due diligence is demonstrated that they are deforestation-free, regardless of whether the deforestation is legal according to the laws of the producing country. In other words, the EU aims to leverage its large market share to stop deforestation without the need for agreement from non-EU countries on whether and how this goal should be prioritized and achieved. In terms of outcomes, there is some evidence of decreasing global rates of tropical deforestation, but also a rising sense of crisis over climate change, biodiversity loss and increasing social and economic inequalities (McDermott et al., 2022). IFG has failed to transform the power dynamics driving these crises (Brockhaus et al., 2021; Delabre et al., 2020). Yet, as was noted over a decade ago in the 2010 “Embracing Complexity” report on IFG (Rayner et al., 2010) may still be the best hope, in that the wide diversity of actors, ideas, and institutions expands the possibilities for positive change and transformation through the co-creation and sharing of power, benefits, and knowledge, both within and beyond IFG.
International Forest Governance for the Future: From Criticism to Alternatives
In this Chapter, we identify and explore the major criticisms of International Forest Governance (IFG). We also present alternatives to current IFG approaches. Our critiques span from technical issues embedded within the accepted IFG framework, to broader challenges of the entire IFG. In response to these critiques, a spectrum of solutions and alternative governance approaches has emerged, ranging from technical fixes and incremental changes to radical transformations. In contrast to the past debate over legally binding versus non-binding aspects of IFG, the current emphasis is on governance beyond government. Despite critiques highlighting the ineffectiveness of these new modes of governance, the scientific call for participation and integration of non-governmental actors is mainstreamed. The review identifies a shift towards ‘critical critiques’ that delve into fundamental governance weaknesses, advocating for radical changes to address power asymmetries and envisioning alternative governance settings. The discussion here also underscores the changing nature of critiques, moving from an environmental output focus on deforestation to a broader societal critique, emphasizing input and throughput legitimacy over output. The importance of addressing the critiques and evaluating whether solutions align with these issues is highlighted, particularly in the context of measuring and monitoring within IFG rules. Technical innovations are presented as both potential solutions and sources of new challenges. Two potential ways forward are proposed. One suggests building on existing approaches, treating them as learning experiences adaptable to diverse national and local contexts to avoid the cyclic adoption and abandonment of new processes. The other, responding to critical critiques, advocates for a radically new IFG framework, rooted in understanding the perceived problems at the local level and addressing them through deliberative and collaborative means, steering away from hegemonic discourses such as emissions-focused approaches.
Advancing Global Biodiversity Governance: Recommendations for Strengthening the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework
Reversing ecosystem degradation and halting global biodiversity loss due to climate change and other anthropogenic drivers are essential for socioeconomic development and human wellbeing, as well as for advancing global sustainability. The latest initiative in this direction is the ‘Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework’, which establishes a blueprint for global coordinated action towards development of national and regional strategies targeting conservation and sustainable utilization of biodiversity. By supporting the notion of ‘ecological civilization’, it emphasises the need for transformative strategies to conserve, monitor and sustainably manage ecosystems by 2030. Arguably the articulation of fit-for-purpose goals and targets is a key precondition for achieving this vision by enhancing cooperation and influencing the development of implementation strategies and regulatory instruments at national and local levels. The present Policy Analysis critically reviews the key features of the draft Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework and suggests recommendations to further strengthen it.
Subnational governments and jurisdictional approaches to REDD+ in Peru: An analysis of the current legal and policy framework
Key Messages
- There is much interest in jurisdictional approaches to REDD+ from new sources of climate finance and voluntary market mechanisms (e.g., LEAF Coalition). Given this interest, it is important to consider how national policy and regulatory frameworks can facilitate these jurisdictional approaches.
- Peru is a useful case study given that some of the country’s subnational governments have signed agreements for the sale of emission reductions from future REDD+ programmes in their jurisdictions.
- Currently, there are no policies or regulations for jurisdictional initiatives by subnational governments in Peru. However, the national government is developing rules under the National Registry of Mitigation Measures (Registro Nacional de Medidas de Mitigación, or RENAMI) and is considering guidelines for nesting initiatives using the Forest Reference Emissions Level (FREL) and the Forest Reference Level (FRL) for the Peruvian Amazon biome that could provide relevant rules for these types of jurisdictional initiatives.
- Legal uncertainties remain for jurisdictional approaches led by subnational governments. These include defining the areas within their jurisdictions that could be part of an initiative, whether the legal framework allows subnational governments to carry out carbon market transactions, and how they would receive and manage the proceeds of those transactions.
- This Infobrief reviews Peru’s current and forthcoming policy and legal framework to understand how subnational governments can be involved in jurisdictional approaches and to assess where the national government rules are heading.
Trust building in a multi-stakeholder forum in Jambi, Indonesia
Liswanti et al. begin with a literature review on the role of trust in multi-stakeholder forums (MSFs) – something widely considered important. They use the work of Stern and Baird, which identifies four bases of trust: (1) dispositional (based on personal traits, hearsay), (2) rational (based on expectation of outcomes resulting from action), (3) affinitive (based on feelings of shared values or connectedness), and (4) system-based (due to fair and transparent procedures). The authors briefly describe the site, the MSF, and their methods. They use Q-methodology, which involves asking respondents to express their agreement or disagreement with a series of locally developed value statements, relating to the MSF. The authors analyze these responses as to the ways they indicate trust and approval (or lack thereof) regarding the MSF. Although MSF functioning was not without challenges, this analysis attributes its impressive and long-lasting successes to its members’ effective cooperation, excellent and relatively unbiased facilitation, and a shared vision – all contributing to the growth of trust within the group.
Towards more inclusive community landscape governance: Drivers and assessment indicators in northern Ghana
Community-based approaches to landscape governance are considered more legitimate, equitable, and inclusive ways to manage natural resources and more effective in achieving conservation and livelihood goals than centralised and top-down approaches. In Ghana, the Wildlife Division of the Forestry Commission devolved decision-making authority over natural resources through the Community Resource Management Area (CREMA) governance system. While there is a growing body of literature on the CREMA governance model, few studies have examined the inclusiveness of its decision-making processes. This study aims to fill this gap by identifying the drivers that hinder or foster the inclusiveness of community governance in the Western Wildlife Corridor of northern Ghana and developing a set of inclusivity assessment indicators. Based on data collected through key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and observations, we found that several stakeholder groups remain at the margins of the CREMA governance system and feel excluded, particularly Fulani herders, women, and youth. Based on our findings and the literature, we present a set of assessment indicators for inclusive CREMA governance. However, these indicators are unlikely to be fully met because of persisting socio-cultural barriers and power asymmetries. We argue that measures such as capacity building, empowering marginalised social groups, promoting their participation in decision-making, and a bottom-up approach towards creating CREMAs are needed to improve the inclusiveness of CREMA governance. Beyond the CREMAs, the inclusivity indicators developed in this study have broad applicability to environmental and landscape governance.
So you want to host a multi-stakeholder platform? Designing meaningful, inclusive spaces for transformative change
Multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPs) are participatory processes that include a wide range of actors in a topic or a landscape, to engage in dialogue, decision making, and/or the implementation of activities for common (landscape) goals.
Spatial Tools for Inclusive Landscape Governance: Negotiating Land Use, Land-Cover Change, and Future Landscape Scenarios in Two Multistakeholder Platforms in Zambia
Landscape approaches are being promoted as a form of negotiated governance to help reconcile competing land uses and identify common concerns for planning envisioned future landscapes. Multistakeholder platforms play a key role in these efforts. This paper aims to contribute to an emerging scholarship that explores how spatial tools can be used in such platforms as boundary objects and if and how they can contribute to inclusive landscape negotiations and governance. We used spatial mapping to observe and document stakeholder perceptions about drivers of land-use and land-cover change and desired future scenarios that accommodate competing land uses. We found that land-cover maps derived from satellite images helped participants identify land-use change dynamics and drivers. The ensuing community mapping of desired landscape scenarios in both multistakeholder platforms (MSPs) triggered a process of identifying common concerns and defining actionable priorities. However, in one MSP, stakeholders ultimately reached a compromise on a draft land-use map that was widely regarded as an entry point for further negotiations in Local Area Plans, while the other lacked consensus due to deep-seated social-cultural issues, such as social-class-based disagreements. This paper illustrates, first, that instead of focusing on the end product (participatory maps), understanding negotiation processes helps uncover why spatial tools may fail to achieve the intended purpose of reconciling land uses. Second, spatial tools only work for landscape approaches if MSPs are inclusive and foster a collaborative process that considers the views of all participants. The authors recommend that those steering MSPs stimulate them to evolve from “mere consultation forums” to “innovative, participatory platforms”, encouraging stakeholders to engage in genuine negotiation processes that allow negotiated and alternative outcomes. We contend that such an approach, supported by spatial tools, is likely to contribute to the implementation of landscape approaches. Policymakers and land users can use these spatial tools as boundary objects in user-focused strategies that engender inclusive stakeholder participation and ensure legitimate, acceptable, and sustainable outcomes.
Transformative land investment: Trends in transnational governance
Key messages
- Land governance standards, regulations and ‘food systems transformation’ have very different meanings across different actors, and different perceived roles – from facilitating large-scale land investments to preventing them.
- The promise that voluntary standards would mobilize significant additional investment has not materialized.
- Challenges with corporate self-regulation have led many, including some private sector actors, to push for mandatory regulation. However, this also comes with specific weaknesses and risks (e.g., bias towards those with the resources to comply); corporate disclosure has been inadequate to date.
- Under the right political and contextual conditions, even what appear to be weak land governance instruments can provide opportunities for the poorest farmers to protect their land rights.
- It is essential to understand and make explicit the different visions and assumptions regarding ‘development’ behind standards and initiatives, and their implementation pathways, in order to identify common ways forward.