CHAIR OF FOREST AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

LATSIS Symposium 6-7 June 2018, ETH Zurich

Scaling-up stakeholder engagement in

Forest Landscape Restoration: Options

and barriers for governance and finance

Dr. Sabine Reinecke, Mareike Blum (PhD candidate)

Project: TABEK - Raising Transformative Ambitions -

Contributions of Effective Climate Instruments (IPCC SR1.5)

15:45Scaling-up stakeholder engagement in Forest Landscape Restoration: Options and barriers for governance and finance

C h a i r o f F o r e s t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y2

Why forest landscapes restoration?Why scale-up stakeholder engagement in FLR?

© cifor

0.5-6 billion ha (40%) to be degraded worldwide (Gibbs&Salmon 2015), 20% (WRI)

degradation = reduction in productivity of the land or soil due to human activity

C h a i r o f F o r e s t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y3

Multifunctional

Forest Landscapes

- Biodiversity &

conservation

- Mitigation

- Social/cultural

- Livelihoods/

income

- Adaptation

concept remains underutilized!© CIFOR

C h a i r o f F o r e s t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y4

• Conceptualizing: Why words matter?

• Results:

• Major FLR discourses

• Governance and finance barriers

• Discussion: responsibilities, power,

space and time

Outline

C h a i r o f F o r e s t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y5

Why words matter?

Aspire.org

Role of subjective meanings for behavior

like policy making /change(Hajer, 1993, 2006).

‘erratic’ behavior linked

with how actors frame

problems /solutions

Policies = product of

discursive struggles(Bäckstrand & Lövbrand

2006)

C h a i r o f F o r e s t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y6

Words matter - “discursive landscapes”

Rishi R. Bastakoti & Conny Davidsen

• Meaning of FLR in ongoing debates

(local/NGO)

resistance

C h a i r o f F o r e s t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y7

country frequency % per cent

Madagascar 10 14,49

Chile 7 10,14

Germany 6 8,70

Uganda 5 7,25

US 3 4,35

Cameroon 3 4,35

Peru 3 4,35

Brazil 3 4,35

Philippines 2 2,90

Nepal 2 2,90

Switzerland 2 2,90

Netherlands 2 2,90

Colombia 2 2,90

Scotland 1 1,45

Thailand 1 1,45

United Kingdom 1 1,45

Zambia 1 1,45

Zimbabwe 1 1,45

Australia 1 1,45

Belgium 1 1,45

Canada 1 1,45

Ecuador 1 1,45

El Salvador 1 1,45

Ethiopia 1 1,45

Guyana 1 1,45

Honduras 1 1,45

Italy 1 1,45

Kenya 1 1,45

Kyrgyzstan 1 1,45

Myanmar 1 1,45

Panama 1 1,45

sub-total 68 98,55

missing data 1 1,45

Total 69 100,00

Sex frequency

male 43

female 25

sub total 68

missing 1

total 69

Africa; 22

Asia; 7Europe;

14

Latin America; 20

North Americ

a; 4

Australia; 1

n.a.; 1

C h a i r o f F o r e s t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y8

Global FLR discourse

Global meanings of FLR (e.g. GPFLR, WRI, IUCN, Bonn

Challenge)

“process of regaining ecological functionality and enhancing

human well-being … through a landscape approach to

sustainable development where natural resource use (forests,

energy, agriculture, water, etc.), conservation and livelihoods

within a given area are considered in an integrated manner.”

(GPFLR)

“focusing on strengthening the resilience of

landscapes”

• adaptive learning

• participatory processes

C h a i r o f F o r e s t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y9

Human well-beingEcological

Well-being

Country understandings:

„for humans“

-Drinking water

-Fertile soils

- NTFPs

etc.

culture

African, Asian, European

respondentsNorth-American, Latin America,

Focus, not climate co-benefit

Forest and Landscape Restoration

C h a i r o f F o r e s t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y10

• Brodest sense: decision making process, making of rules

• Process that decides how actors, finance and knowledge

etc. are coordinated across scale and time

• Ways of governing (= i.e. process, exert power)

• agenda setting (directions: desirable futures)• policy making (formal rules, not others)• multi-stakeholder collaboration/platforms (who is in/out)• land use planning (what, where, when, who (not))• organizing MRV („who counts, counts“)• knowledge exchange (which claim dominates)• financial flows (who pays, who benefits (not!))

Governance (and finance) barriers

1

0

C h a i r o f F o r e s t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y11 1

1

Political concerns: oo

- weak/wrong policy framework, (ministerial silos, tenure /right recognition)

- vested political interests (short sited, electoral cycles, power dynamics)

- Top-down approach (international pledge/promises vs. implementation)

- insufficient inclusion of all relevant actors

Insufficient knowledge, technology and capacities: oo

- incoherent/insufficient data or interdisciplinary models: ‘right’ FLR practices

(species, lessons), landscape dynamics, culture / economics (‘values’), behavior

- Unclear/contested definition and concepts (e.g. restoration, landscape)

- insufficient education, lack of awareness (public/stakeholders)

- insufficient monitoring/restoration capacity: technology transfer, management

Socio-economic concerns: o

- attractive for private sector, (short term) economic viability

- opportunity cost unsustainable practices

- how rural production is organized generally

- or: “obsession with economic growth”

Financial concerns: o

- sufficient, large scale, long term, public and private, domestic

- ‘feasible’ (desirable) business cases

Governance related barriers

C h a i r o f F o r e s t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y12 1

2

political solution: ooo- institution building, enabling pol. environment (cross-sectoral)- collaboration: local engagement, or: regional/multilateral coordination - better policy implementation/ law enforcement (less high level announcement)- political consideration of topic (at high/local level) pol. willtechnical solutions: o- capacity building, knowledge exchange- improve research (e.g. valuation), - optimize land use (agroforestry, intensification)- better monitoring of (local) work- clarify FLR terms, concepts, principlessocio-cultural solutions: o- raise awareness (common entry point, value of nature, consumptive culture) - support (school) education (locals, pupils, youth)- strengthen youth associations - major role for media

economic solution (market): o- become economically viable- ensure long-term employment- link restored landscapes to local economies- business beyond primary production (manufacture, processing, tourism, PES)

financial solution: oo- provide (more) financial resources to achieve goals (/across all relevant actors)- assure long-term financial support- make finances more accessible (esp. to small farmers)

Governance related options/solutions

C h a i r o f F o r e s t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

34

54

412 12

5

16

3 5

22

21

12

4

12

22

11

21

7

17

18

Importance of different actor groups in FLR implementation

high

very high

66!

Which stakeholders are responsible? (‚power‘ claims)

C h a i r o f F o r e s t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y14 1

4

http://mishawilson.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Information-Overload.jpg

C h a i r o f F o r e s t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y15Rishi R. Bastakoti & Conny Davidsen

FLR Policy

FLR

reformist

Government: regulate

Technical: LU plans

Locals: Participatory,

ownership, bottom up

classical

C h a i r o f F o r e s t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y16

FLR – integrative or empty concept?

• Development, “for people” beyond CO2, PA buy-in

• Risks for biodiversity? Adaptive – long-term?

• Bottom-up: rhetoric or guiding action?

• Dialectic notions: local community ownership vs.

strong technocratic government

• Overcome pre-existing power imbalances?

• “Landscape” notion: F-and-LR: mosaic (>forest)

• Illusion ? multiple uses - “a place for everyone”?

• Trade-off: ecol. vs. human values: Shock proof

(hungry now)?

• Permanence?

Discussion – about aims and responsibilities

C h a i r o f F o r e s t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y17

International

National

Sub-national

Local

• Spatial concepts are performative

• „Multi-level“ (?)

• Farm vs. „forest“ vs. policy units

• local communities /smallholders

• CPR, informal/traditional rules andpractices, MRV „ground truthing“

• Jurisdictions and nation states

• pledge authority, regulatory/financialframeworks, Forest/Land Codes, LU plans, tenure rights, MRV.

• World regions /across borders

• AFR100, 20x20, REDD+/UNFCCC, CBD, CCD, Bonn Challenge: initiative, political drive, multilateral finance, global markets, knowledge exchange, MRV (satellite tech)

• Power over or across levels?

Spatial Dimension (MLG)

1

7

Multi-level perspective according to F.W Geels (2002)

FLR

universal approach, holistic, coordinated vs.

recentralization„loose ground“

Close toaction,„project“ trap, scale-up?

INT

EG

RA

TIO

N?

DO

MIN

AT

ION

?

C h a i r o f F o r e s t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y18

• „sustainable“ from initiation toconsolidation?

• Relevant time perspectives differ:

• Election periods

• Expected dates of returns of investments

• Growing phases, time lagged benefits,

• what to eat in the meanwhile: Immediate opportunity costs (hungry now)

• Donor committments /project durations(science to implementation)

• Adaptive management?

• Future generations?

• Reconciliation of interests (governance)?

1

8

Temporal Dimension

C h a i r o f F o r e s t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y19

Interest (power, $,

will)

„scale“

Laws (tenure

etc.)

Collaboration„time“ Financial

security

capacity data

Sectoralsilos

• Governance >than laws/policies

• political process (power), incl. „technical“ steps

• Landscapes, social constructs across space /time:

• multiple power loaded policy levels

• long-term perspective scarce in dominant discourses

• “Centred” FLR discourse: window of opportunity for new thinking?

• Or ground for contradictions and conflicts?

• state vs. local control

• Perfect is enemy of good:

• Desirable landscapes (that work) vs. ecologically, economically effective Garden Eden (no buy in)

• win-win?: there will be (powerful) losers need innovative approaches to reconciliation and collaboration

• We are only +/- „good“ collaborators

• But getting better!!!?

1

9

Sum-up

C h a i r o f F o r e s t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y20

Präsentationstitel20

C h a i r o f F o r e s t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y21

Präsentationstitel21

Reinecke et al. 2013

Science(facts)

Politics(power,

values)

Truth

knowledge closure policy choice

source: Jasanoff & Wynne (1998)

C h a i r o f F o r e s t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y22

Präsentationstitel22

C h a i r o f F o r e s t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y23

Thank you – Danke

Questions?

Email to: sabine.reinecke@ifp.uni-freiburg.de

C h a i r o f F o r e s t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y24 2

4

C h a i r o f F o r e s t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y25

Discourse Analysis

Discourse as “ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categories

through which meaning is given to social and physical phenomena,

and which is produced and reproduced through an identifiable set of

practices” (Hajer, 2006).

Research interest:

Meaning in ongoing debates about Forest Landscape Restoration

Does the Bonn Challenge reflect or reconcile meanings of (all)

relevant constituencies?

Prior research: (Bäckstrand & Lövbrand 2006; Brockhaus et al. 2014, 2016)

3 dominant discourses:

• Ecological modernization

• Green Governmentality

• Civic Environmentalism

e.g. REDD+/CDM: dominance Ecol. Mod. Vs. Civic Environ.

C h a i r o f F o r e s t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y26

Major REDD+ storylines and policy discourses in Nepal’s REDD+ policy arena

Rishi R. Bastakoti & Conny Davidsen

How much are all discourses still reflected in the context of FLR?

C h a i r o f F o r e s t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y27

TABEK project: Research design

Online survey with 68

stakeholders from research,

policy, business, IOs, NGOs

etc. in xxx countries

Participatory observation (side

events, launches,

conferences, workshops,

discussions

Literature research (academic

case studies, internet material,

reports etc.)

3 Helicopter interviews (BC) &

various informal talks w/

experts to verify insights

Data

collection

C h a i r o f F o r e s t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y28

TABEK project: Research design

1. How do you define forest (and) landscape restoration?

2. What major achievements can be obtained?

3. What are your major concerns about FLR?

4. Relevance of following actors in FLR (why):

- national goverments

- local gov./communities

- smallholders

- multination. /dev. Banks

- private funds

- multinat. Corporations

- national companies

- certification standards

- technical consultants

- research

- etc.

5. What needs to be done politically to promote FLR?

… plus demographic, geographic properties

i.e. Whom they wish to

see in the driving seats

C h a i r o f F o r e s t a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y29 2

9

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

Nat. Gov Loc.Gov Smallholder Dev.banks Priv.funds TNC Nat.company Standards Consultants Scientists

Axis Title

Researcher

IO

company

government

dev. Agency

NGO