FACTORS BEHIND THE ESTABLISHMENT AND FULFILLMENT OF NORWAY-INDONESIA REDD+ PARTNERSHIP (2010-2019)

The concentration of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions creates non-boundary effects. Fighting the problem requires cooperation among states. As a developed country, Norway has continuously shown its support for addressing ecological issues both domestically and globally. The government actively engages in international environmental discussion and amplifies its status in the forum through financial contribution and consultation. As part of Norway’s environmental diplomacy to be a global environmental leader, the country actively offers a partnership to developing countries with forest problems, including Indonesia, through the Norway-Indonesia REDD+ partnership. By using the International Cooperation and Domestic Political Institution theories, this research aims to identify the factor behind the establishment and fulfillment of the Norway-Indonesia REDD+ bilateral agreement. Ultimately, the study finds that the confidence that the Norwegian government has towards Indonesia’s commitment to emission reduction pushes the offering of a partnership from the Norwegian government. Furthermore, the funds promised under the agreement attract Indonesia to enter the agreement and fulfill it as it helps the country to achieve its forest-related emission reduction goals.


REDD+ stands for "Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest
Degradation" and the plus sign (+) refers to the broader focus of the initiative which is "the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries" (UN-REDD Programme, 2016a). REDD+ was established in 2007 during the annual Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to create financial value for the carbon stored in trees to encourage developing countries to contribute to global climate change efforts by (1) reducing GHG emission from deforestation; (2) reducing GHG emissions from forest degradation; (3) conserving forest-carbon stocks; (4) enhancing forest carbon stocks; (5) implementing sustainable forest management (UN-REDD Programme, 2016b). The agreement is divided into three phases for interested parties to follow and the phases are readiness phase (preparing action plans), implementation of the strategies (enacting plans to further capacity building and results-based demonstration activities), and result-based actions (must be measured, reported, verified) (UN-REDD Programme, 2016b).
As those steps suggest, the way of the agreement work is a developing country will receive results-based aid (RBA) by putting results-based actions; thus, REDD+ requires funding from donor countries to operate and these following countries are several of the REDD+ donors which include Norway, the United Kingdom, Germany, the United States, and Australia (NORAD, 2020;Angelsen, 2017). Through that funding, REDD+ also creates an opportunity for developed countries to pursue their environmental diplomacy agenda.
Indonesia is one of the four countries that is bounded by Norway's REDD+ partnership and the reason Norway decided to cooperate with Indonesia is that assisting Indonesia to reduce the stem of GHG coming from forest problems will create significant progress on the global GHG emission reduction goal. The signing of the REDD+ letter of intent under President Susilo B. Yudhoyono's presidency formalized the partnership between Norway and Indonesia and the agreement contains approximately USD 1 billion worth of incentives that Indonesia will be able to claim depending on the results of its effort to reduce its forest and peat related greenhouse gas emissions for an initial period of five years beginning in 2010 (Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, n.d.).
Since Environmental issues notably climate change is perceived to a critical problem as their effects threatens the entire international community in general and fighting it indeed requires cooperation from both developed and developing countries considering it is not entirely developing countries' responsibility even though since the past decade the amount of GHG emissions from developing countries have increased as the growth of industrialization (Wei, et al., 2016). The developed countries also contributed to the issue in the sense that they effectively exported their CO2 emission to developing countries by moving manufacturing processes to developing countries and importing manufacturing goods from developing countries throughout the second half the 20th century (Wei, et al., 2012). With that in mind, fighting climate change indeed requires cooperation from both developed and developing countries and ones, pointing more toward developed countries to lead the fight.
It is necessary to find the underlying causes for developed and developing countries to establish bilateral cooperation to understand what makes the derivations behind the continuity of the partnership. Thus, this research attempts to analyze the factors that lead both Norway and Indonesia to establish and commit to the Norway-Indonesia REDD+ partnership using the following research question: "What are the factors that lead Norway and Indonesia to establish and fulfill the Norway-Indonesia REDD+ partnership?"

Theoretical Framework
To analyze the rationale behind the establishment of the Norway-Indonesia REDD+ partnership, this research will adopt a theoretical approach to help portray a phenomenon on how an institution and its product which in the case is UNFCCC and REDD+, with a mission to achieve a greater in terms of global reduction of GHG emissions, able to shape political agenda and domestic policy for both Norway and Indonesia. The researcher chose international cooperation and domestic political institution theories due to the reason in which these theories correlate with the focus of this study as explains comprehensively the factors that lead to the formation and fulfillment of an international agreement.
To begin with, the study of International Cooperation has developed over the past few decades as the influence that domestic politics have on international behavior grabs the focus and attention of international relations scholars (Dai, Snidal, & Sampson, 2017). The concept of international cooperation itself can be traced back to over two thousand years ago, long before Thucydides, an Athenian historian, and general, conferred diplomacy, treaties, and alliances (Dai, Snidal, & Sampson, 2017). However, it is until the early 1980s that the concept of International Cooperation the form (Taylor, 1976;Axelrod, 1981;. Until today, International Cooperation is understood as a "coordinated behavior" of sovereign actors, who are likely in pursuit of their agenda, that mutually benefits all stakeholders (Dai, Snidal, & Sampson, 2017). Additionally, there are several major assumptions underlying International Cooperation, which include the following: (1) the international system is anarchical and there are no higher authorities above states (Powell, 1994;Milner H. V., 1991); (2) the state is a unitary actor that tries to put their national interest first (Dai, Snidal, & Sampson, 2017); (3) states will act inconsistent with their goals which can be in a form of material interests as well as ideations (Elster, 1984;Ferejohn, 1991); (4) international cooperation view the outcomes of actors behaviors through changes in the environment instead of preferences (Lake & Powell, 1999). Furthermore, the recent International Cooperation literature has contributed in a sense to help distinguish what actions consider cooperation and in which conditions cooperation is possible to emerge (Milner H. , 1992).
Brett A. Leeds, an international relations scholar, in her publication titled "Domestic Political Institutions, Credible Commitments, and International Cooperation" proposes a notion that unravels how state leaders choose to coordinate policy internationally. The author uses the simple model of dyadic cooperation or collaboration between two states in the international system and discovers that in alignment with a neoliberal institutionalist perspective that explains cooperation may impede due to the anarchic system which makes it difficult to prevent cheating and opportunistic behaviors (Axelrod & Keohane, 1986); mutually beneficial international cooperation is hard to achieve by the inability of partners to an agreement to guarantee their future in the case when unilateral defection get incentivized and has the potential to disadvantage concerned parties (Leeds B. A., 1999). With this model, it makes certain of the decisions to form agreements are partially derived from actors' confidence in the likelihood of the agreement fulfillment (Leeds B. A., 1999). Therefore, when actors propose to form agreements to coordinate policy, they would consider the probability that the agreement will be fulfilled, and the costs borne if the agreement is discontinued (Leeds B. A., 1999). If the risks and costs are associated in the case of unilateral defection from an international agreement and there is no incentive for cheating and opportunistic conduct, the lack of enforcement in the international system should not impede international cooperation among states (Leeds B. A., 1999). Ultimately, as long as two actors decided to form an agreement and uphold their obligations covered in the agreement and follow through with their promises despite knowing whether the other actors plan to cooperate or defect, the agreement will be fulfilled because the decisions to form and fulfill are inevitably connected (Downs, Rocke, & Barsoom, 1993;Fearon, 1998a).
Furthermore, there has been a growing number of literature on international relations that focuses on domestic political structures and how it plays an important role in explaining a state's willingness and commitment to take part in international agreements (Fearon, 1998b). However, most literature related to domestic political institutions perceives the degree of states making credible commitments commitment towards agreements is in line with the extent to of their domestic population will hold the leaders for their actions (Leeds B. A., 1999). Thus, accountability deters withdrawal considering the higher the degree of public disapproval and the greater political accountability that holds against breaking the agreement, the more likely state leaders to face costs of defection (Leeds B. A., 1999).
A scholar found a connection between the characteristics typical of the democratic political system to commit to sticking up for agreements. Through the concept suggested by Fearon, every crisis escalation that comes with backing down from public action or statement will increase the cost of the domestic population in states with democratic political systems because there are checks and balances to the power held by the domestic audience (Fearon, 1994). With that being said, he argues that cooperation among democratic state poses lower risks, remembering state leaders will be subjected to domestic costs (Fearon, 1994). In support of that argument, Smith adds the connection of audience cost in a domestic re-election campaign that explains leaders who plan to run for the office again have incentives to make promises they will fulfillleaders once public commitment because voters will rely on observations of policy outcomes to evaluate the competency of the leader due to information asymmetries (Smith A. , 1998). With that, a change in policy leads to a troublesome situation for democratic states' leaders once a public commitment is made (Leeds B. A., 1999).
Lastly, it is important to note that some empirical analyses support the fact that states with democratic political systems exhibit high levels of cooperation with the international agreement (Siverson & Emmons, 1991;Leeds & Davis, 1953-78). Another supporting factor towards that behavior because of the higher levels of political accountability that democratic states have compared with autocratic states, considering the democratic political system tends to be slow and difficult when experiencing the major reverse of foreign policy commitments (Cowhey, 1993;Gaubatz, 1996). Therefore, state leaders with the least autonomy and the most domestic constraints will be most successful at reassuring cooperation as they are more likely to be advantaged in making credible commitments (Leeds & Davis, 1953-78).
Furthermore, as the focus of this study is mainly to unravel the factors behind the establishment and fulfillment of REDD+, the specifically Norway-Indonesia REDD+ partnership; therefore, the researcher adopts the following research framework as an illustration for readers to better understand this study.
By the illustration below (Figure 1), to formulate answers on the factors that lead to the establishment and fulfillment of the Norway-Indonesia REDD+ partnership, this research will look into the components of International Cooperation theory, which are Norway and Indonesia's confidence in the fulfillment, costs borne due to defection, and reasons to for each country to form the agreement. In addition to that, this research will examine the aspects of Domestic Political Institution theory, which consists of public opinions, the levels of political accountability in policy changes, and the losing audience costs in the election, contributing to the establishment and fulfillment of the partnership.

Research Method
In conducting this study, the researcher chose to adopt a qualitative method for both data gathering and analyzing activities. The qualitative method tends to develop deeper insights as it is inclined to make explorations and seeks to explain how and why a particular behavior operates as it does in a particular context (Johnson & Anthony, 2004). Furthermore, the qualitative research method is suitable for the study as it primarily uses non-numerical data, such as data gathered through observation or interview, and no statistical test is required during analyzing the gathered data (Creswell & Creswell, 2009).
To gather data for this research paper, the author used primary and secondary sources, were mainly collected from government officials' speeches, official government websites, books, academic journals, and credible news media. Those sources are chosen to closely reflect Norway and Indonesia's policies that lead to the formation and fulfillment of the Norway-Indonesia REDD+ partnership. Furthermore, to have the relevant data for this research, the author used the content analysis method as it helps to filter out the unnecessary data while preserving the necessary data to develop a deeper understanding of research in a particular field related to the topic .

Factors That Lead Norway to Establish and Fulfill the Norway-Indonesia REDD+ Partnership
To begin with, based on International Cooperation Theory when Norway and Indonesia announced that they agreed to enter a REDD+ bilateral partnership together to support Indonesia's emissions reduction efforts from deforestation and forest degradation on 26 th May 2010 Joint Press Conference, Norway Prime Minister at that time, Jens Stoltenberg praised the Indonesian President, Dr. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, in his global leadership on climate change by wanting to significantly reduce its forest emissions and said that he is more than pleased to support achieving Indonesia's ambitions (Norwegian Prime Minister Office, 2010). Following that, in 2015, the Norwegian Prime Minister 2013, Erna Solberg did a state visit and had talks with Indonesian President Joko Widodo (Jokowi) on relations between the two countries, which includes the cooperation on reducing forest-related emissions under REDD+ bilateral partnership (Parlina, 2015). Prime Minister Solberg gave her thoughts through local media, she said, "Much has been achieved by Indonesia [since 2010] ... President Jokowi has made it clear that his administration will maintain Indonesia's level of ambitions on reducing deforestation, and forest and peat degradation," (Parlina, 2015). Furthermore, despite the USD 1 billion worth of agreement was not able to stop deforestation in Indonesia after six years after the partnership was put into force; however, Norway's confidence in Indonesia's fulfillment was still present following the Noway's Climate and Environment Minister, Vidar Helgesen's statement that says "We've spent six years in this partnership not getting there, … In another two years, we really should be there. (Spolar, 2016)" Ultimately, these examples show signs of the Norwegian government's confidence in Indonesia to eventually fulfill the partnership despite it progressing slower than expected.
Next, to Norway, Indonesia plays an important role in regards of achieving significant reductions in GHG emissions considering the country has the largest emissions derived from forests and tropical peatland deforestation and forest degradation (Norwegian Prime Minister Office, 2010). During the press conference announcing the establishment Norway-Indonesia REDD+ partnership, Norway's Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg gave statements on the importance of cooperating with Indonesia on the issue of forest emissions reductions, she said that "Indonesia is a key country in terms of reducing deforestation, therefore this agreement and Indonesia's commitment is a great step forward in achieving large scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. (Norwegian Prime Minister Office, 2010)" When the partnership entered into force in 2010, Norway made a first disbursement with a total of USD 30 million from the USD 1 billion funds to support the preparation of Phase 1, which was managed to complete by Indonesia in 2017 (Caldecott, Indrawan, Rinne, & Halonen, 2011). This contribution is accounted for a small part of the total payments that the partnership promised and regarded as payable upon achieving results by funding capacity building to undertake REDD+ implementations and deliver measurable emission reductions (Caldecott, Indrawan, Rinne, & Halonen, 2011). This sum of funds was channeled by Norway to The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), considering the nature of corruption in Indonesia, and was planned to spend following the budgeting scheme in Table 1. Provided that only small investment made as far as Indonesia had not entered Phase III; therefore, when talking about the cost borne to defection, for Norway, losing the biggest emitters from the forest-related problem as a partner to create substation emission reductions globally is a greater cost that comes with the withdrawal decision. Additionally, Norway took an interest to establish REDD+ bilateral partnership with Indonesia after President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono announced Indonesia's unilateral commitment in that the country will reduce its GHG emissions by 26 percent and up to 41% with international help instead of business-as-usual as the 2009 G-20 Pittsburgh Summit (Caldecott, Indrawan, Rinne, & Halonen, 2011). This bold target that Indonesia has in cutting down GHG emissions sparked interest for Norway to invite Indonesia to enter a REDD+ bilateral partnership with them to support the country to realize the commitment (Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, n.d.). The rationale behind Norway through NICFI approach to Indonesia is mainly based on the level of Indonesia's GHG emissions stem forest sector (Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, n.d.). Following that, NICFI conducted several negotiations that led to the establishment of the the Norway-Indonesia REDD+ partnership (Caldecott, Indrawan, Rinne, & Halonen, 2011). Furthermore, by taking into account that the reasons to establish are related to the reasons why countries decide to fulfill international agreements in this case, it helps to link the rationale behind Norway's willingness to establish and fulfill REDD+ bilateral partnership with Indonesia, in which is to support the country to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation despite repeated delays, setbacks, and criticism in regards of the partnership (Seymour F. , 2019).
Based on Domestic Political Institution theory, Norway's commitment to taking part to reduce global environmental problems emerges in the same year with the development of its oil and gas industry, which is in the 1960s; however, the interest peaked after the publication of the Brundtland Commission Report in 1987 and the 1992 Earth Summit (Rosendal, 2007). At the domestic level, through the emergence of discussion regarding the ecological issue, the Norwegian public started to become more aware of the importance of improving environmental sustainability within their country (Rosendal, 2007). For example, based on the results of the polling conducted by the Oslo-Based Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research in 2019 on Norwegians' attitudes towards climate change and climate actions, 67.4 respondents agreed that the Norwegian people, politicians, and businesses have a responsibility to cut GHG emissions (Kerr, 2019). Moreover, 44 percent of Norwegians believe that the country should continue to spend more money on climate measures following the 2019 Klimabarometeret survey (Kjorstad, 2020). In response to the Norwegians' positive attitude toward climate change which progressively takes up the majority, the Government of Norway has shown its efforts to reduce emissions on a national and international level (Smith B. , 2015).
To show its commitment towards global climate mitigation efforts, Jens Stoltenberg, who was Norway's Prime Minister in 2007, made a vow to award USD 1 billion annually to global climate change efforts in deforestation or REDD+, which action gain support from most political parties in Norway's parliament (Schroeder, Di Gregorio, Brockhaus, & Pham, 2020). Additionally, the next Prime Minister, Bård Vegar Solhjell believes that REDD+ by protecting forest simultaneously supports three pillars of sustainability, which consists of environmental, social, and economic; thus, he thinks that REDD+ is certainly a breakthrough in a greener environmental transition (Moss, 2012). Furthermore, Norway's active role in engaging developing countries to enter REDD+ bilateral partnerships with them gains positive reactions from the international community. For example, the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon (Norwegian Prime Minister Office, 2010) stated that "… President Yudhoyono of Indonesia and Prime Minister Stoltenberg of Norway are both global leaders on climate change. That they have now come together in an ambitious partnership to reduce emissions from deforestation, forest degradation and peatland destruction in Indonesia is good news for the world." Furthermore, in Norway's political system, the Ministry of Climate and Environment holds a primary role in carrying out Norway's climate and environmental policies and commitments; however, a decision regarding international aid and development cooperation is made by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its embassies (Schroeder, Di Gregorio, Brockhaus, & Pham, 2020). NICFI is a part of the Ministry of Climate and Environment and works under the surveillance of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for REDD+ international aid and development programs with objectives to (1) work to achieve the new international climate regime target on reduction of emission from deforestation and forest degradation; (2) take early actions to find a solution for cost-effective and verifiable GHG emissions reduction; (3) safeguard forests to maintain their carbon-storing capacity (NORAD, 2020). Under NICFI, partnerships with REDD+ partner countries have shown promising results as it may have contributed 20 million tons of GHG emission reductions from forest degradation and deforestation by 2016 (Hein, Guarin, & Pauw, 2018). In addition to that, the existence of NICFI is believed by Norway to "deliver a quarter of the climate change mitigation the world needs to stay on a two degrees warming pathway towards 2030." With this in mind, changing the policy that hinders NICFI's efforts will take a toll on Norway's attempt on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. The positive contributions that NICFI made led Norway to extend its commitment and will continue to fund its partner countries until 2030 through this initiative (Hein, Guarin, & Pauw, 2018).
Another key points, based on the 2019 Climate Barometer (Kjorstad, 2020)), a nationwide survey conducted by a data research company named Kantar, a total of 49% of Norwegian voters believe that climate change is the number one priority issue in Norway, which encompasses health and care, immigration and integration, and many more (Kerr, 2019). This is the first time that the climate has been at the top of the survey, which has been carried out for the 10th consecutive year. Additionally, among all the political parties in Norway, only the Progress Party, which is a right-wing party, does not support Norway's ambitious climate goals (Farstad, 2019). Given that, those who voted for the Progress Party mostly have a negative attitude toward emission reduction efforts and are least concerned about climate change (Kjorstad, 2020). However, in the 2017 Parliamentary Elections, the Progressive Party only accounted for 6% of the total vote share (Norwegian Centre for Research Data, n.d.). Therefore, by taking into account the growing concerns of climate change in the eye of Norwegian voters, actions that are by Norway's political parties that are not in support of measures to reduce emissions will affect the election results.

Factors That Lead Indonesia to Establish and Fulfill the Norway-Indonesia REDD+ Partnership
Through the scope of International Cooperation theory, it is important to acknowledge that according to the Indonesian ambassador to Norway and Iceland, Indonesia's aim in the establishment of the Norway-Indonesia REDD+ partnership is to reform its forest management to be able to meet its emission reduction commitment with the support from Norway (Lubis, 2020). Based on the agreement, Norway pledge to provide financial aid of up to USD 1 billion as well as scientific and technical support (Lubis, 2020). Moreover, during the press conference, where both countries announced the formation of the partnership, President Yudhoyono affirm his optimism towards the REDD+ framework implementation in Indonesia and Norway will pay up after Indonesia creates a measurable emission reduction from deforestation and forest degradation (Norwegian Prime Minister Office, 2010). Furthermore, it is important to mention that in despair of the continued deforestation and forest degradation that happened in Indonesia six years after the partnership was established, Norway told Indonesia that they would continue and reinforce the longstanding REDD+ bilateral agreement that they have (Jong & Parlina, 2016). Given that, Norway is one of the few countries in the world that pledges a large sum of "patient capital" to aid international climate change mitigation goals (Seymour, Birdsall, & Savedoff, 2015). Another thing, according to Indonesia's presidential spokesman, Norway's commitment to fulfilling the partnership expresses trust in the country in Indonesia's effort on addressing emission reductions from forest-related problems (Jong & Parlina, Norway Slams Slow REDD+ Project Progress, 2016). Norway has agreed to carry on its support and cooperation through the partnership at a time when the agreement is set to expire in 2016 (Parlina, 2015). With this in mind, Indonesia's confidence in Norway's fulfillment remains high as there have not been signs of Norway threatens to retract from the partnership.
Next, throughout the implementation of the Norway-Indonesia REDD+ partnership, Indonesia was set to receive up to USD 50 million in the first phase, up to USD 150 million in the second phase of the agreement, making USD 800 million reserved for the third phase (Jong & Parlina, Norway Slams Slow REDD+ Project Progress, 2016). In the case of result-based aid agreement like REDD+, the majority of the funds reserved for phase 3 will not be released if there is no progress in reducing emissions from forests made by the recipient country (Seymour, Birdsall, & Savedoff, 2015). Moreover, it is important to mention the importance of the agreement with Indonesia. According to the Indonesian Environment Ministry's Head of Climate Change, Ruandha Agung Suhardiman believes that the continued REDD+ partnership with Norway plays an important role in supporting Indonesia to achieve its emissions reduction targets (Jong H. N., 2020). With that, the costs borne by Indonesia for not fulfilling Norway-Indonesia REDD+ partnership is making its path to achieve its emission reduction goals more challenging, considering losing a major donor country to support its efforts in protecting forests from deforestation and forest degradation.
Furthermore, through the establishment of the Norway-Indonesia REDD+ bilateral partnership, President Yudhoyono hopes that it can support its emissions reduction objectives by ensuring the sustainability of forests in the country (Seymour, Birdsall, & Savedoff, 2015). President Yudhoyono reaffirmed his commitment to REDD+ by protecting its forests through collaboration with the developed country in multiple events, for example, at Oslo Climate and Forest Conference in 2010 (Ecosystem Marketplace, 2010). Additionally, to show its commitment to achieving that goal, President Yudhoyono also instituted a twoyear moratorium that prohibits new concessions of natural primary forests as well as peatland, which was made permanent under President Jokowi's leadership in 2019 (Yudhoyono, 2011). Provided that, for Indonesia, entering a REDD+ bilateral partnership with Norway is one of the measures taken to help achieve the country's emission reduction target; thus, having a credible commitment to fulfill the agreement would be a reasonable choice for Indonesia.
In contrast, Domestic Political Institution theory sees the following points. Firstly, based on the results of the 2020 Peoples' Climate Vote conducted by the UNDP and partners to find out whether people perceive climate change as an emergency and how they would like their country to respond, 57 percent of Indonesians, or the majority are in support of forests and land conservation and expect their government to take actions addressing that problem considering the country has high emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (Flynn, et al., 2021). However, it is important to mention that public opinions are divided towards the decision of Indonesia to enter a REDD+ bilateral partnership with Norway. On one hand, the secretary general of Indigenous Peoples' Alliance of Nusantara (AMAN), Abdon Nababan declared that "Indigenous peoples of Indonesia support this [Norway-Indonesia REDD+] Partnership and will contribute to the planning and implementation of the measures, provided we can continue to exercise our rights and traditional knowledge to have sustainable livelihood from forest ecosystems. (Norwegian Prime Minister Office, 2010)" On the other hand, a representative from the Indonesian Forum for Living Environment (WALHI), Zenzi Suhandi conveyed his skepticism towards REDD+ as the answer to climate change, he stated, "During the Yudhoyono presidency, despite an international image as a country committed to reducing emissions, there was still massive deforestation. (Asia Sentinel, 2015)" Furthermore, the confidence of both the international and domestic public dwindled as REDD+ supporters were mired in legal and bureaucratic details to set up the necessary REDD+ institutions for the implementation phase and years late in achieving a measurable emission reduction from forests (Seymour, Birdsall, & Savedoff, 2015). Not to mention, the civil society groups under President Widodo's administration held negative views towards the progress made by the National REDD+ Agency, which led to the disbandment of the Agency and the transfer of duties and responsibilities of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (Dibley, 2017). Given these points, despite the divided perspectives of Indonesia's domestic population's support towards the Norway-Indonesia REDD+ partnership, one thing is certain, the majority of Indonesia's population would like the government to take an active role in conserving its forests, meaning that withdrawal from the largest REDD+ agreement that the country will result in public disapproval.
Secondly, in the interview carried out by the local media, the Norwegian Ambassador to Indonesia, H. E. Vegard Kaale admitted that Indonesia has invested massively in forest protections to show its commitment towards reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (NOW! People, 2018). From President Yudhoyono's announcement that aims to voluntarily the country's GHG emissions to President Jokowi's decision to further the commitment, the success of Indonesia in achieving its emissions reduction target is critical in supporting global emission reduction effort, considering the country is the largest contributor of GHG emissions from forests (Chrysolite, Juliane, Chitra, & Ge, 2017). However, to stay on the path to achieving its climate ambition target, Indonesia is required to commit to not only enforcing the existing policies in the land-use sector but also implementing the strengthened policies (Wijaya, et al., 2017). Entering the REDD+ bilateral partnership has resulted in a few successes for Indonesia in creating measurable annual emission reductions from deforestation and forest degradation. For instance, preventing 4.8 million tons of GHG emissions between the years 2016 and 2017 and is in progress calculating the emissions reduction that is made between 2018 and 2019 (Pinandita, 2020;Jong H. , 2019a). Thus, it is important to realize that retracting from its emissions reduction goals would set back the country's efforts in achieving its GHG emission reduction target.
Finally, taking into account the connection between the change in Indonesia's commitment to fulfillingIndonesia's commitment to fulfilling the Norway-Indonesia REDD+ partnership Norway-Indonesia REDD+ partnership and public approval or disapproval of audience cost in the country's presidential election, it is important to take a look into Indonesian voters' behavior. The opposite of the reality in Norway, according to the survey throughout the past decade, Indonesian voters are primarily attracted to leaders instead of the policies priorities, programs, and political parties, which explains why most Indonesian political parties are personalistic (Mujani, Liddle, & Ambardi, 2018). Given that, regional and ethnic backgrounds, professional backgrounds, religious affiliations, and personal leadership qualities are the most important factors to secure presidential and vice-presidential seats (Mujani, Liddle, & Ambardi, 2018). For this reason, during the 2019 presidential candidate debate, despite the audience's expected climate change would be discussed as both candidates' agenda but apparently, none of them mentioned their plans for tackling climate change (Jong H. N., 2019b). Given these points, Indonesia's commitment to reducing emissions plays less role in the presidential election campaign.

Conclusion
In this research, the writer tries to find out the factors that lead both nations to establish and fulfill a bilateral partnership to achieve GHG emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. By using the International Cooperation and Domestic Political Institution theories, this research examines both Norway and Indonesia's confidence in the counterpart's fulfillment, cost borne due to defection, the relations between the reasons to establish and fulfill, public approval or disapproval, political accountability in policy changes, and audience costs in the election. The writer believes that using both International Cooperation and Domestic Political Institution theories in examining the factors behind the formation and fulfillment of international agreements clarifies certain factors that other theories are unable to make clear.
Based on the analysis in this research, the writer found that the factors that lead Norway to establish and fulfill the Norway-Indonesia REDD+ partnership are primarily due to supporting Indonesia to achieve its emission reduction ambitions and show that tackling climate change is still on top of the Norwegian government's priority list. Meanwhile, the factors that lead Indonesia to enter and commit to REDD+ bilateral partnership with Norway are mainly to receive financial and technical assistance to help achieve its climate policy target as well as safeguard the country's forest.