publication . Article . 2014

REDD+ policy networks: exploring actors and power structures in an emerging policy domain

Brockhaus, M; Di Gregorio, M; Carmenta, R;
Open Access
  • Published: 01 Dec 2014
  • Publisher: Resilience Alliance, Inc.
  • Country: United Kingdom
Abstract
Policy making is often neither rational nor solution-oriented, but driven by negotiations of interests of multiple actors that increasingly tend to take place in policy networks. Such policy networks integrate societal actors beyond the state, which all aim, to different degrees, at influencing ongoing policy processes and outcomes. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) can be considered as such an emerging policy domain, in which actors cooperate and conflict in network structures, build coalitions and try to control information and finance flows relevant for REDD+ decision making. This special feature is the result of an extensive comparative research effort to investigate national level REDD+ policy processes and emerging policy networks. This unique collection of seven country cases and a comparative study provides evidence on how power, coalitions, and different interactions among actors in policy networks enable the transformational change required for an effective, efficient, and equitable national REDD+ design. However, as we will see in most of the cases, where the dominant coalitions fail to tackle the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, they also hinder such major policy reforms required for REDD+. The aim of this editorial serves four purposes: first, we provide an argument about “why” policy network analysis is highly relevant to the study of REDD+ policy processes; second, we explain “how” policy network analysis is used in this special feature to investigate policy processes in this domain; and third, we explore the “so what?” or how a policy network lens helps us understand the political opportunities and challenges for REDD+. Finally, we provide an outlook for the relevance and future research design of policy network analysis when applied to REDD+ and to policy network structures more broadly.
Persistent Identifiers
Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) [Beta]
Subjects
free text keywords: Ecology, agency, climate change, comparative analysis, discourse coalitions, policy network analysis, power, REDD+, SNA, transformational change, Biology (General), QH301-705.5, QH540-549.5, Argument, Agency (sociology), Negotiation, media_common.quotation_subject, media_common, Policy analysis, Comparative research, Policy studies, Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, Public economics, Policy network analysis, Business
Communities
Communities with gateway
OpenAIRE Connect image
63 references, page 1 of 5

Angelsen, A. 2010. The 3 REDD 'I's. Journal of Forest Economics 16:253-256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2010.10.001 Angelsen, A., and D. McNeill. 2012. The evolution of REDD+: A political economy framework. Pages 31-48 in A. Angelsen, M. Brockhaus, W. D. Sunderlin, and L. Verchot, editors. Analysing REDD+: challenges and choices. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.

Angelsen, A., and S. Wetz-Kanounnikoff. 2008. What are the key design issues for REDD and the criteria for assessing options? Pages 11-21 in A. Angelsen, editor. Moving ahead with REDD: issues, options and implications. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.

Arhin, A. A. 2014. Safeguards and dangerguards: a framework for unpacking the black box of safeguards for REDD+. Forest Policy and Economics 45:24-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. forpol.2014.05.003 [OpenAIRE]

Arts, B. 2003. Non-state actors in global governance: three faces of power. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Munich, Germany.

Arts, B., and J. Van Tatenhove. 2004. Policy and power: a conceptual framework between the 'old' and 'new' policy idioms. Policy Sciences 37:339-356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11077-005-0156-9 Babon, A., D. Mcintyre, G. Y. Gowae, C. Gallemore, R. Carmenta, M. Di Gregorio, and M. Brockhaus. 2014. Advocacy coalitions, REDD+, and forest governance in Papua New Guinea: How likely is transformational change? Ecology and Society 19(3): 16. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06486-190316 Biermann, F. 2010. Beyond the intergovernmental regime: Recent trends in global carbon governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2:284-288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.cosust.2010.05.002

Bodin, Ö., and B. I. Crona. 2009. The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What relational patterns make a difference? Global Environmental Change 19:366-374. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.05.002 Borgatti, S. P., and M. G. Everett. 1997. Network analysis of 2- mode data. Social Networks 19:243-269. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/S0378-8733(96)00301-2

Borgatti, S. P., and P. C. Foster. 2003. The network paradigm in organizational research: a review and typology. Journal of Management 29:991-1013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063 (03)00087-4

Borgatti, S. P., and J. L. Molina. 2003. Ethical and strategic issues in organizational social network analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 39:337-349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00218­ 86303258111

Börzel, T. A. 1997. What's so special about policy networks? An exploration of the concept and its usefulness in studying European governance. European Integration online Papers (EIoP) 1(16). [online] URL: http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/1997-016a.htm Broadbent, J. 2010. Science and climate change policy making: a comparative network perspective. Pages 187-214 in A. Sumi, K. Fukushi, and A. Hiramatusu, editors. Adaptation and mitigation strategies for climate change. Springer, New York, New York, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-99798-6_13 Broadbent, J., and P. Vaughter. 2014. Inter-disciplinary analysis of climate change and society: a network approach. Pages 203-228 in M. J. Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, A. Rechkemmer, E. A. Duke, editors. Understanding society and natural resources. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-­ 017-8959-2_10

Brockhaus, M., and A. Angelsen. 2012. Seeing REDD+ through 4Is: a political economy framework. Pages 15-30 in A. Angelsen, M. Brockhaus, W. D. Sunderlin, and L. V. Verchot, editors. Analysing REDD+: challenges and choices. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia. [OpenAIRE]

Brockhaus, M., and M. Di Gregorio. 2012. A brief overview: component 1 on national REDD+ policies and processes. CIFOR Infobrief 13. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.

Brockhaus, M., and M. Di Gregorio. 2014. National REDD+ policy networks: from cooperation to conflict. Ecology and Society 19(4): 14. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06643-190414 Brockhaus, M., M. Di Gregorio, and S. Mardiah. 2013. Governing the design of national REDD+: an analysis of the power of agency. Forest Policy and Economics. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.07.003 [OpenAIRE]

Brockhaus, M., M. Di Gregorio, and S. Wertz-Kanounnikoff. 2012. Guide for country profiles: global comparative study on REDD (GCS-REDD) component 1 on national REDD+ policies and processes. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.

Bulkeley, H. 2000. Discourse coalitions and the Australian climate change policy network. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 18:727-748. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/c9905j Burt, R. S. 1987. A note on missing network data in the general social survey. Social Networks 9:63-73. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/0378-8733(87)90018-9

Burt, R. S. 2004. Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology 110:349-399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/421787 Bushley, B. R. 2014. REDD+ policy making in Nepal: toward state-centric, polycentric, or market-oriented governance? Ecology and Society 19(3): 34. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ ES-06853-190334

63 references, page 1 of 5
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue