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: [email protected]
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
Top Related