This document summarizes a study that analyzes national REDD+ policy networks in several countries. It uses policy network analysis to examine power structures, conflicts, and cooperation and how they influence REDD+ policy progress. The study finds that different power structures - such as concentrated vs fragmented power - influence REDD+ decision making in different ways. Countries with more concentrated power structures tend to have more dominant decision making, while those with more fragmented power have more inclusive policy domains but can be more difficult to coordinate. Both conflict and cooperation are important drivers of policy change. The level of each influences the degree of REDD+ policy progress.

1. A comparative analysis of national REDD+ policy
networks: Conflicts and cooperation as drivers
for policy making
Maria Brockhaus and Monica Di Gregorio
ISEE, Rio de Janeiro, 18th June 2012
THINKING beyond the canopy

2. Introduction
 Policy Network Analysis provides a way to analyse political
systems, focusing on the relational and positional
aspects of policy processes
 Allows to analyse the structural constraints and
opportunities for policy change
 Allows to analyse power relations within the policy process
through identification of different roles and levels of
influence of actors within networks
 Investigates the inner mechanisms of coalition building
which is the basic process by which policy learning and
policy change occurs
 Allows to develop policy recommendations which take into
account the structural constraints and opportunities for
effective policy making
THINKING beyond the canopy

3. Comparative Analysis of National
REDD+ Policy Networks:
Research Question
 How do power structures (policy network structures)
affect progress of national REDD+ decision making
processes?
Analytical focus in this paper currently on progress
because REDD+ policy outcomes are not yet measurable
 Hypothesis: A relatively low level of concentration of
power and a high level of cooperation lead to
progress in REDD+ decision making
THINKING beyond the canopy

4. Conceptual Framework
Typology of Power Structures
Type of Conflict/Competition Cooperation
interaction
Distribution
of power
Fragmentation Challenge Cooperation
Concentration Dominance Consultation
Adapted from Kriesi, Adam & Jochum 2006
THINKING beyond the canopy

5. Mixed Methods
 Expert Panel to identify network boundaries
 Social Organization Survey
• Informant: high representative, knowledgable person about
national REDD+ policy processes
• 7 questions on relational ties (interactions) among policy actors
 Actors in-depth Interviews
• Question guide for semi-structured interviews
• Questions aimed at capturing positions of organizations in
national REDD+ policy domain
 Social network analysis & qualitative analysis
THINKING beyond the canopy

6. Network Questions
 Influence network – reputation power
Which organizations stand out as especially influential in
affecting the REDD+ policies?
 Cooperation network (informal coalitions)
With which other organizations does your organization
collaborate on a regular basis on REDD+ related issues?
 Conflict network
With which organizations does your organization often find
itself disagreeing on REDD+ policy issues?
THINKING beyond the canopy

7. Distribution of power
 Network of influence  network centralization as the
indicator for concentration of power
The centralization of a network is a measure of how
central its most central policy actor is in relation to how
central all the other policy actors are.
` “Centralization measures … (a) calculate the sum in
differences in centrality between the most central node in
a network and all other nodes; and (b) divide this quantity
by the theoretically largest such sum of differences in any
network of the same degree” (Freeman 1979)
THINKING beyond the canopy

8. Preliminary results: Distribution of
power in REDD+ policy domains
Indonesia Vietnam Nepal Tanzania Brazil Cameroon
St dev indegrees: 11.0 8.6 8.4 11.1 9.3 6.9
St dev norm
indegree 17.4 16.9 25.4 17.7 17.0 10.9
Network
centralization
(%) 75.6 72.5 58.4 52.0 45.8 32.3
Observations (no
of nodes) 64 52 34 64 56 64
THINKING beyond the canopy

9. Conflict and Cooperation
 Analysis of conflict and collaboration networks 
patterns of interactions  identification blocks of policy
actors that are structural equivalent (4 blocks per
country)
“Two nodes are said to be exactly structurally equivalent
if they have the same relationships to all other nodes.”
Because exact structural equivalence is likely to be rare
(particularly in large networks), we focus on examining
the degree of structural equivalence, rather than the
simple presence or absence of exact equivalence.”
 Are interactions predominantly conflictual or
cooperative?
THINKING beyond the canopy

10. Brazil Collaboration Network
THINKING beyond the canopy

11. Brazil Collaboration Network
THINKING beyond the canopy

12. Insights from early results
Collaboration networks
Brazil cooperation (56) Indonesia cooperation (64)
Brazil conflict Indonesia conflict
THINKING beyond the canopy

13. Typology of power structures
Type of Conflict/Competition Forms of Cooperation
interaction
Distribution
of power
Fragmentation Challenge Cooperation
Cameroon Brazil
Nepal
Tanzania
Concentration Dominance Consultation
Vietnam Indonesia
THINKING beyond the canopy

14. Conclusion
 Different power structures affect REDD+ policy
progress in different ways:
Helps to identify political constraints and
opportunities to effective REDD+ policy
development
Affect progress of REDD+ decision making,
participation, type of strategies
(contention/cooperation) needed to achieve
effective REDD+ policy outcomes
THINKING beyond the canopy

15. Conclusion (2)
 Power structures in REDD+ policy arenas do not
mirror the type of political regime
Fragmentation of power produces inclusive
policy domains but difficult to coordinate
Concentration of power provides speedy
political decisions, but lacks inclusiveness
Different power structures require different
degrees of cooperation and contention to
move from business as usual to effective REDD+
policy progress
THINKING beyond the canopy

16. Acknowledgements
This work is part of the policy component of CIFOR’s global comparative study on REDD (GCS). The methods and
guidelines used in this research component were designed by Maria Brockhaus, Monica Di Gregorio and Sheila Wertz‐
Kanounnikoff. Parts of the methodology are adapted from the research protocol for media and network analysis designed
by COMPON (‘Comparing Climate Change Policy Networks’).
Case leaders: Thuy Thu Pham (Nepal), Thuy Thu Pham & Moira Moeliono (Vietnam), Daju Resosudarmo & Moira
Moeliono (Indonesia), Andrea Babon (PNG), Peter Cronkleton (Bolivia), Mary Menton (Peru), Sven Wunder & Peter May
(Brazil), Samuel Assembe & Jolien Schure (Cameroon), Samuel Assembe (DRC), Salla Rantala (Tanzania), Sheila Wertz‐
Kanounnikoff (Mozambique), Suwadu Sakho‐Jimbira (Burkina Faso), Arild Angelsen (Norway). Special thanks to our
national partners from REDES, CEDLA, Libelula and DAR, REPOA, UEM, CODELT, ICEL, ForestAction, CIEM, CERDA, Son La
FD, UPNG, NRI‐PNG, and UMB.
Thanks to contributors to case studies, analysis and review : Levania Santoso, Tim Cronin, Giorgio Indrarto, Prayekti
Murharjanti, Josi Khatarina, Irvan Pulungan, Feby Ivalerina, Justitia Rahman, Muhar Nala Prana, Caleb Gallemore
(Indonesia), Nguyen Thi Hien, Nguyen Huu Tho, Vu Thi Hien, Bui Thi Minh Nguyet, Nguyen Tuan Viet and Huynh Thu Ba
(Vietnam), Dil Badhur, Rahul Karki, Bryan Bushley (Nepal), Daniel McIntyre, Gae Gowae, Nidatha Martin, Nalau Bingeding,
Ronald Sofe, Abel Simon (PNG), Walter Arteaga, Bernado Peredo, Jesinka Pastor (Bolivia), Maria Fernanda Gebara, Brent
Millikan, Bruno Calixto, Shaozeng Zhang (Brazil), Hugo Piu, Javier Perla, Daniela Freundt, Eduardo Burga Barrantes, Talía
Postigo Takahashi (Peru), Guy Patrice Dkamela, Felicien Kengoum (Cameroon), Felicien Kabamba, Augustin Mpoyi,
Angelique Mbelu (DRC), Rehema Tukai, George Jambiya, Riziki Shemdoe, Demetrius Kweka, Therese Dokken (Tanzania),
Almeida Sitoe, Alda Salomão (Mozambique), Mathurin Zida, Michael Balinga (Burkina Faso), Laila Borge (Norway).
Special thanks to Efrian Muharrom, Sofi Mardiah, Christine Wairata, Ria Widjaja‐Adhi, Cecilia Luttrell, Markku Kanninen,
Elena Petkova, Arild Angelsen, Jan Boerner, Anne Larson, Martin Herold, and Pablo Pacheco.
We gratefully acknowledge the support received from the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation,
the Australian Agency for International Development, the European Commission,
and the UK Department for International Development.
THINKING beyond the canopy