Using national REDD+ strategy development in Tanzania as a case study, this presentation asks how national policymakers make sense of the complex information available about REDD+, who are the central knowledge and information actors and brokers, and what influence these dynamics and discourses have on the creation of REDD+ policy. There are implications in this research for breaking the stalemate on polarising issues and improving the chances of an effective policy being produced. Salla Rantala from the Harvard Kennedy School’s Sustainability Science Program gave this presentation on 18 June 2012 at a panel discussion organised by CIFOR and partners at the ISEE 2012 Conference at Rio, which convened under the topic "Ecological Economics and Rio+20: Challenges and Contributions for a Green Economy". The panel was titled ‘National strategies for reducing emissions from avoided deforestation and degradation – how much transformational change is possible in current political and economic realities? Part I – An overview’. For more information, visit http://www.cifor.org/events/rio20/

1. Knowledge and brokerage in
REDD+ policymaking: evidence
from Tanzania
Salla
Rantala
Sustainability
Science
Program,
Harvard
Kennedy
School
ISEE
2012
conference,
June
18,
2012

2. National REDD+ policy processes
§ REDD+ aims to address a multifaceted, transnational common pool resource
problem – numerous overlapping interests at stake
§ Amidst international uncertainty, several countries are preparing their
national REDD+ policies with support by Norway, World Bank-FCPF, UN-
REDD
§ Policy actors have varying bases of knowledge and capacities (and other
resources) to assimilate new REDD+ related information that is coming out
on an almost daily basis
How do national policy actors make sense of the complexity
and decide how to act?
Who gets their point across, why?
What implications does this have for the legitimacy and
effectiveness of policy?

3. Policy Networks Analysis
Policy formulation, decisions, and outcomes result from
different types of interactions between diverse actors,
mediated by institutional and relational structures,
agency and political opportunity.
§ Relational structures operationalized as networks, e.g.
Ø resource networks, incl. material and informational ties
Ø networks of meanings: shared concerns, discourses;
Ø participation in the same events.
§ Actors mobilize support and resources to influence
process and outcomes. Relational structures pose both
social constraints and opportunities on the actors’ action
repertoires.

4. Knowledge, coalitions and brokerage
§ Discursive dimension: the more public the process,
the more space for deliberation to influence policy
outcomes (Leifeld & Haunss 2011)
§ Discourse coalitions (Hajer 1995)
• Shared articulation of policy problems and solutions
• Discursive institutionalization: the concepts
articulated by a coalition come to be acted upon in
the policy process
- mediated by resource interdependencies
§ Brokers in boundary-spanning, strategic positions
for information flow – mediators or self-interested
manipulators?

5. Case study: national REDD+ strategy
development in Tanzania
§ 33.5 million ha forest and woodland – 2/3
unclear tenure & contested claims
§ Norwegian investment in national REDD+
Strategy development, REDD+ pilot projects,
and capacity-building (USD 100 million since
2008)
§ Strategy development led by gov’t REDD+
Task Force, facilitated by a Secretariat
§ In principle, a participatory process – inclusion
of sub-national levels of government and civil
society through a series of consultations

6. Data (2011)
• Census sampling of actors (organizations), policy events and protest
events
• 64 organizational actors, 5+5 events
• Structured survey (94% response) and in-depth semi-structured interviews
(76% response) – UCINET network analysis & qualitative content analysis

7. Centrality – indicator of status and power
§ The same five actors are most central in networks of influence,
REDD+ communication and information sharing, resource
exchange and collaboration:
• 2 governmental members of the national REDD+ Task
Force in 2011
• Task Force Secretariat (a national research institute)
• Norway
• two national forest/natural resource NGOs
Core-­‐periphery
structure
in
the
network
of
communicaGon
and
informaGon
exchange

8. Framing REDD+
§ High consensus among the Tanzanian policy actors about key issues
that need to be addressed in order to achieve effective REDD+
§ Divergence regarding policy options, especially modalities of benefit
sharing
• CSOs (protest events, REDD+ pilots): Nested approach
• Government-led REDD+ Task Force: National approach
Stances
by
organizaGonal
type
regarding
the
statement
“All
REDD
accoun&ng
and
payments
should
go
through
the
na&onal
governments”.
1=strongly
disagree,
5=strongly
agree

9. Discourse coalitions
§ Strong norm-based advocacy by the “protest coalition”:
community rights to participation and benefits – the only way
to achieve effective & legitimate REDD+
§ Government-led Task Force members share the same
concepts, but appear more driven by achievement of technical
qualifications for int’l REDD+ finance
• REDD+ as an opportunity to channel funds to forest management
• Gov’t leadership is key for effective (and legitimate?) REDD+
§ Loose discourse coalitions. Actors of both coalitions are part of
the core in the various networks
“A
na&onal
approach
is
necessary
to
ensure
effec&veness
of
REDD”
Blue=parGcipated
in
protest
events;
Red=did
not
parGcipate
in
any
protest
events

10. Brokers
§ 37 of the surveyed actors are “technical” organizations, 20
have a strong mission in REDD+ relevant knowledge
dissemination, 12 consider themselves government advisors in
REDD+ policy issues
§ But in the network structural sense, few are brokers
Elected
to
represent
CSOs
in
the
new
expanded
Task
Force
in
Nov
2011
OrganizaGons
in
a
coordinator/
representa.ve
Protest
event
role
in
the
leader
network
of
REDD
+
communicaGon
and
informaGon
sharing

11. Brokers
OrganizaGons
in
a
liaison
role
in
the
network
of
REDD+
communicaGon
and
informaGon
sharing

12. Recent developments in the policy
process
§ National REDD Task Force has been expanded to
include 6 new ministries & 1 CSO member
§ Thematic working groups:
• 1: Legal, Governance and Safeguards
• 2: Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV)
• 3: Financial Mechanism: REDD+ Fund
• 4: Energy Drivers
• 5: Agriculture Drivers
§ Echoed in the 2nd draft national REDD+ strategy (exec.
summary Nov 2011)

13. Conclusions – dynamics of the policy
process
§ Network positions of key members of both discourse
coalitions are conducive for policy influence
§ “Protest coalition”: strong ideational congruence among a
stable core of key members, normative arguments with
wide bases of legitimacy
§ Through public efforts to promote deliberation and key
brokers, CSOs have gained discursive space
§ “Gov’t coalition”: shares the same concepts but a
discourse of ambiguity; institutional filter works in their
advantage

14. Conclusions – legitimacy and effectiveness
§ Identified brokers are in positions to enhance information
flow and mediate, but not (seen to be) neutral
§ For “true” legitimacy, crucial to assess quality of vertical
representation, and lines of accountability
§ How to break the stalemate regarding polarizing issues &
enhance chances of having an effective policy?
Ø new knowledge by third parties (e.g. modelling
outcomes of different proposals) – but structural
constraints for linking knowledge to action apply
Ø focus deliberative efforts on issues where (at least
superficial) conceptual overlap between coalitions

15. Thank you!
salla_rantala@hks.harvard.edu
Acknowledgements:
§ CIFOR’s
global
comparaGve
study
on
REDD
(GCS)
hZp://www.forestsclimatechange.org/global-­‐comparaGve-­‐study-­‐on-­‐redd.html;
Maria
Brockhaus,
Monica
Di
Gregorio,
COMPON
project
(‘Comparing
Climate
Change
Policy
Networks’,
hZp://compon.org/)
§ William
Clark,
Harvard
Sustainability
Science
Program,
Fulbright
Center,
Finnish
Cultural
FoundaGon
§ Funding
for
CIFOR’s
research
was
provided
by
the
Norwegian
Agency
for
Development
CooperaGon,
the
Australian
Agency
for
InternaGonal
Development,
the
UK
Department
for
InternaGonal
Development,
the
European
Commission,
the
Ministry
for
Foreign
Affairs
of
Finland,
the
David
and
Lucile
Packard
FoundaGon,
the
Program
on
Forests,
and
the
US
Agency
for
InternaGonal
Development.