Policy learning in REDD+ Donor Countries: Norway, Germany and the UK
Introduction
Almost 15 years have passed since the idea of REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries) was adopted by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and local, regional, national, bilateral, transnational and international policies, programmes and projects emerged under the banner of REDD+ (Corbera and Schroeder, 2011, Agrawal et al., 2011, Lederer, 2012). In recognition of the role forests play in climate change, major donor countries around the world, in particular the top five of Norway, Germany, the US, Japan and the UK, have increased their spending and institutionalization efforts on REDD+ (Dooley and Parker 2015). In 2015, the Paris Agreement sent a strong signal in favor of REDD+ in dedicating one whole article (Article 5) to the role of forests in addressing climate change (Korhonen-Kurki et al. 2019).
REDD+ has led to some significant changes in discourses, practices, policies and legal frameworks across tropical forest countries since its inception in 2005 (Angelsen et al., 2012, Mulyani and Jepson, 2013, Luttrell et al., 2014) and reshaped non-governmental engagement in the forest sector (Brockhaus et al., 2014a, Gupta et al., 2016; Betts and Schroeder 2015). It has expanded from an initial idea of focusing on the carbon in the forest to realizing co-benefits (Schroeder and McDermott, 2014, Di Gregorio et al., 2013), recognizing the need to address deforestation drivers outside the forest (Curtis et al. 2018; van Hecken et al. 2019) and mitigating against justice-related pitfalls arising from REDD+ projects, such as displacement, marginalisation and loss of identity (Marion Suiseeya 2017).
On the other hand, the largely neoliberal nature of REDD+ and its commodification of forest carbon have been critiqued repeatedly (McAfee, 2016, Martin et al., 2019, Dunlap and Sullivan, 2019, Fletcher et al., 2016, Osborne, 2015) and have not been able to mitigate resource limitations, political instability, lack of political will, conflict over tenure rights and weak local governance and law enforcement (Lund et al., 2017, Dawson et al., 2018, Korhonen-Kurki et al., 2019, Brockhaus et al., 2017). The significant dominance of donor countries in the process (Dooley and Parker 2015) and their reliance on development assistance goals and national interest (Gulrajani 2017) have led to repeated cases of oversimplified and generalized understanding of local level dynamics and complexities, leading to adverse outcomes and a tendency to not align project goals with local needs and relationships with their territory (Corbera and Schroeder, 2017, Gebara and Agrawal, 2017, Trædal and Vedeld, 2017). Recognition of the ecological knowledge and practices of inhabitants of forests that have historically maintained the balance and wellbeing of these ecosystems remains insufficient (Schroeder et al., 2019).
Thus impacts from REDD+ vary greatly across geographies and scales (Angelsen et al., 2012, Mulyani and Jepson, 2013, Luttrell et al., 2014) as well as on the evaluation or impact assessment method used (Bos et al. 2017). Studies touching on the performance of results-based approaches have emerged in recent years (Arts et al., 2019, Wong et al., 2019, Angelsen et al., 2018, Duchelle et al., 2018, Chiroleu-Assouline et al., 2018). In-depth studies on the major REDD+ donor countries are especially scarce or now dated, although a few reports, articles and working papers exist (Westholm et al., 2011, Streck, 2012, Pistorius and Kiff, 2014, Dooley and Parker, 2015, Norman and Nakhooda, 2014, Well and Carrapatoso, 2017). Yet, none of the studies has focused on processes and outcomes of policy learning within REDD+ decision making, despite the recognition of its importance for improving REDD+ outcomes and needing reflexive responses, rather than blueprint solutions. Hence, we ask: How do policymakers in REDD+ donor countries learn? and sub-questions of (1) What modes and types of learning are used? (2) What are the roles of scales of individual to institutional, generalist to specialist and incremental to transformative learning? (3) How deep is the learning? We examine the three major REDD+ donors Norway, Germany and the UK, which have jointly pledged USD 5 billion for 2015–2020 (for funding volumes see Atmadja et al. 2018).
The paper is structured as follows. We begin with summarizing how learning is conceptualized in the global governance literature. Next, we explore learning for REDD+ and the REDD+ funding landscapes in Norway, Germany and the UK. We then introduce our conceptual framework and methods before analyzing the types, modes, scales and depth through which learning is practiced in the three countries. We end with a discussion and concluding remarks.
Section snippets
Policy learning
It has long been acknowledged that learning matters in policymaking (e.g. Nye, 1987, Haas and Haas, 1995), in particular for tackling problems that are described as ‘super-wicked’, being highly urgent, uncertain, non-linear, untested, symptomatic of other problems, novel, ever evolving and lacking a central authority (Levin et al. 2012). Where problems are characterized in this way, as is the case with climate change and accelerating deforestation, special attention to learning about how to
Research design and methods
To examine what is learned and how learning takes place in REDD+ donor countries to reach stated objectives on REDD+, we analyze primary/secondary literature and expert interview data. We then apply key learning frameworks discussed above and a learning matrix to the latter question to identify patterns that can be generalized and compared with other issue domains to facilitate future learning. Borrowing from Howlett et al. (2017) and Kemp and Weehuizen (2005), the learning matrix combines
The REDD+ Funding landscape
The original idea of REDD+ was that developed countries would financially incentivize developing countries with substantial forest cover to measurably reduce deforestation and thus forest carbon emissions beyond what would have occurred in its absence (UNFCCC 2011). Backed by scientific estimations that deforestation was accounting for some 17–20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC 2012) and economic projections that reducing deforestation was a cheap and effective mitigation
What is Learned: Shifting objectives and approaches to REDD+ Funding
Across the landscape of key European donors, a general policy shift from narrow to broad, from focused to multiple and from directed to interactive has gradually emerged in response to challenges with regard to governing and implementing REDD+ (Corbera and Schroeder 2011). REDD+ “has become a shorthand for a more expanded version of what it was meant to be” (I-N5). This shift includes the broadening from forests to land use, from carbon to co-benefits and from focusing on forests and forest
How it is Learned: Underlying levels and modes of learning
The broadening of REDD+ from a rather simple and focused idea to including additional elements, such as safeguards, co-benefits and Indigenous Peoples rights (McDermott et al. 2012), has slowed down progress and made it harder to demonstrate results (I-U5), putting it “in the category of very hard to assess” (I-N2). Curiously, whilst “our means of electronically recording and storing information is easier today than ever before, analyzing and learning from it and identifying essences and key
Discussion: Modes, types and resulting scales and depth of learning
In terms of modes and types of learning, the analysis above shows that learning in REDD+ donor countries takes place primarily through experience and interaction, somewhat through observation and less so through study. Whilst learning happens to a large extent in an informal manner, the formalized and intermittent processes of evaluation and reporting are not deemed quite as useful in all cases. On-the-ground learning in recipient countries is obviously useful, and all countries have some
Conclusion
The historical, institutional, organizational, operational and political approaches of Norway, Germany and the UK vary in crucial ways and have generated different kinds of lessons over the past 10 + years. Whilst experience with the forest and land use sectors more broadly is longer standing in Germany and the UK, Norway entered with the emergence of REDD+. Norway’s financial commitment has been higher from the get-go and focused more squarely on carbon emission reductions than the other two
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Heike Schroeder: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization, Project administration. Monica Di Gregorio: Visualization, Writing - review & editing. Maria Brockhaus: Funding acquisition, Writing - review & editing. Thuy Thu Pham: Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
A special thank you goes to all interview partners from Norway, Germany and the UK who generously offered their time to participate in this research. We also thank some interview partners as well as Sabine Reinecke (Freiburg University) and Ilan Chabay (IASS) for the substantive comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript and their corrections of factual information. This research is part of CIFOR's Global Comparative Study on REDD+ (www.cifor.org/gcs). It was funded by the International
References (95)
- et al.
Governing the design of national REDD+: an analysis of the power of agency
Forest Policy and Economics
(2014) - et al.
Designing REDD+ Contracts to Resolve Additionality Issues
Resource and Energy Economics
(2018) - et al.
Roots of inequity: How the implementation of REDD+ reinforces past injustices
Land Use Policy
(2016) - et al.
Barriers to equity in REDD+: Deficiencies in national interpretation processes constrain adaptation to context
Environ. Sci. Policy
(2018) - et al.
How institutions and beliefs affect environmental discourse: Evidence from an eight-country survey on REDD+
Global Environ. Change
(2017) - et al.
Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways
Res. Policy
(2007) Bilateral Donors and the Age of the National Interest: What Prospects for Challenge by Development Agencies?
World Development
(2017)- et al.
Deforestation and the Paris climate agreement: An assessment of REDD+ in the national climate action plans
Forest Policy and Economics
(2018) Economic de-growth vs. steady-state economy
J. Cleaner Prod.
(2010)The power of buildings in climate change mitigation: The case of Norway
Energy Policy
(2017)
Promising Change, Delivering Continuity: REDD+ as Conservation Fad
World Dev.
The political context of REDD+ in Indonesia: Constituencies for change
Environ. Sci. Policy
Operationalizing social safeguards in REDD+: Actors, interests and ideas
Environ. Sci. Policy
Tradeoffs in Carbon Commodification: A Political Ecology of Common Property Forest Governance
Geoforum
A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes
Global Environ. Change
Financing REDD+: matching needs and ends
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Framing national REDD+ benefits, monitoring, governance and finance: a comparative analysis of seven countries
Global Environ. Change
Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.
Affect as Methodology: Feminism and the Politics of Emotion
Int. Political Sociol.
REDD+ as Result-based Aid: General Lessons and Bilateral Agreements of Norway
Review of Development Economics
The Performance of REDD+: From Global Governance to Local Practices
Forests
The Brazil-Norway agreement with performance-based payments for forest conservation: successes, challenges, and lessons
CGD Climate and Forest Paper Series
Comparing methods for assessing the effectiveness of subnational REDD+ initiatives
Environment Research Letters
REDD+ policy networks: exploring actors and power structures in an emerging policy domain
Ecology and Society
REDD letter days: entrenching political racialization and State patronage through the Norway-Guyana REDD-plus agreement
Social and Economic Studies
REDD+ Crossroads Post Paris: Politics
Lessons and Interplays, Forests
Governing and Implementing REDD+
Environ. Sci. Policy
Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory
Classifying drivers of global forest loss
Science
Equity and REDD+ in the media: a comparative analysis of policy discourses
Ecol. Soc.
Policy learning and policy failure: definitions, dimensions and intersections
Policy & Politics
Policy learning in the Eurozone crisis: Modes, power and functionality
Policy Sci.
A Tale of ‘Fat Cats’ and ‘Stupid Activists’: Contested Values, Governance and Reflexivity in the Brno Railway Station Controversy
J. Environ. Plann. Policy Manage.
Climate change: Financing global forests
Questioning REDD+ and the future of market-based conservation
Conservation Biology
Cited by (7)
Active forest management accelerates carbon storage in plantation forests in Lishui, southern China
2022, Forest EcosystemsCitation Excerpt :Most importantly, active management allows more atmospheric carbon to be stored in forests and other ecosystem functions and services to be improved. In fact, increasing forest carbon storage via AFM has been an important component under the REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks) scheme of the Paris Agreement (Schroeder et al., 2020). Improving forest carbon storage through forest management and restoration efforts, such as reforestation, will eventually lead to the accumulation of carbon stocks in forests (Global Forest Observations Initiative, 2016).
Benefit sharing and conflict transformation: Insights for and from REDD+ forest governance in sub-Saharan Africa
2021, Forest Policy and EconomicsCitation Excerpt :Environmentally, forests play an increasingly important role in regulating greenhouse gas emissions and consequently in efforts to mitigate climate change (Ziegler et al., 2012), while providing critical habitat for biodiversity (Betts et al., 2017), as well as mutually beneficial support for interconnected ecosystems such as water (Hallema et al., 2018) and soil (Chen et al., 2018). At the same time, forests are an important cultural and socioeconomic source for the livelihoods of more than one billion people living in extreme poverty (World Bank, 2004; Chao, 2012; FAO, 2014), while international agreements and development projects increase the scope of interest groups beyond national boundaries (Singer and Giessen, 2017; Schroeder et al., 2020). Such direct relevance of forests for various actors from global to local scales makes this resource system highly prone to competition and conflict.
Management of plantation forests for bioenergy generation, timber production, carbon emission reductions, and removals
2021, Cleaner Environmental SystemsCitation Excerpt :Promotion of forest management and restoration are the important targets of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 15 and 13. In fact, enhancement of forest carbon stocks is one of the important components under the REDD + scheme of the Paris Agreement (Schroeder et al., 2020). It includes improvement of forest carbon stocks through forest management and restoration activities such as enrichment planting and planting on the deforested lands that will eventually result in accumulation of carbon stocks in the forests (GFOI, 2016).
Climate change governance: Responding to an existential crisis
2021, The Impacts of Climate Change: A Comprehensive Study of Physical, Biophysical, Social, and Political IssuesEnabling new mindsets and transformative skills for negotiating and activating climate action: Lessons from UNFCCC conferences of the parties
2020, Environmental Science and PolicyChallenges and lessons learned for REDD+ finance and its governance
2023, Carbon Balance and Management