Más contenido relacionado

Similar a Towards a global typology of forest policies and measures(20)

Más de Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) (20)


Towards a global typology of forest policies and measures

  1. Colas Chervier, Julia Naime, Malte Ladewig, Arild Angelsen Global typology of policies to reduce deforestation
  2. Rationale • Contribution to the context-policy matrix • And more generally: contribution towards synthetizing the current knowledge on the influence of context on impact of “forest policies and measures”. • Large diversity of policies and measures & commonalities in the way they intend to bring about change: need to simplify and identify types Types of policies and measures P1 P2 P3 Context archetypes A1 A2 A3
  3. Gap and objective • Previous typologies and classification: not encompassing enough, predefined types (top- down), unclear and non-reproductible classification methods  Objective: to define a typology of public policies based on a method that is bottom-up, reproductible and systematic (using criteria derived from the theories of change of policies).
  4. Element 1: The universe of forest policies and measures considered • Our definition is meant to be: • Not too narrow (missing policies and measures that key actors use to reduce deforestation) • Not too broad (the link with deforestation reduction has to be relatively direct) • To establish the list of relevant policies and interventions, we relied on: (i) Previous studies that have done a review of the literature & (ii) Review national REDD+ strategy documents from our target countries. • We have identified 35 policies and interventions….but this list is not exhaustive! Any policy, program, or action aimed at changing or significantly affecting the behavior of forest- related actors and thereby directly or indirectly contribute to avoiding deforestation. Road construction in a forested area = Y Devaluation/depreciation of national currencies = N
  5. Element 2: A generic theory of change of forest policies and measure Forest policies and measures implemented (transfer of material incentives or information) Change in behavior of targeted stakeholder(s) Deforestation and forest degradation reduced Psychological mechanism activated Cause of deforestation mitigated Inputs Outputs Short-term intermediary outcomes Long-term intermediary outcomes Impacts Theory-based typology: we intend to classify policies and measures according to the way they are supposed to bring about change
  6. Element 3: attributes and sub-attributes characterizing forest policies and measures Attributes Change in behavior of targeted stakeholder(s) Psychological mechanism activated Cause of deforestation mitigated Psychological mechanism activated by forest policies and measures Actors targeted by forest policies and measures Causes of deforestation mitigated by forest policies and measures Theory of change Maximization of material payoffs Compliance/ Obedience Social belongingness satisfaction Competence/ self-efficacy Sub-attributes Producers Supply chain actors Consumers Governments and public actors Finance actors and investors Limited values of forests and benefits of forest-friendly activities Large benefits from forest- degrading activities Weak governance Inadequate human development conditions Inadequate demand for forest- related commodities
  7. First results (1/2) • Identification of dominant sub-attributes for each policy/measure • E.g., PES = payoffs + land users + increase forest values • Different levels of aggregation possible: • 10 middle-level types (orange line) with at least two common sub- attributes. 3 4 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10
  8. First results (2/2) Type 1 = producers + material payoffs (e.g. PES) Type 2 = producers + compliance/ obedience (e.g. PA) Type 3 = producers + broader development conditions + psychological mechanism other than material payoffs and obedience (family planning campaigns) Type 4 = producers + improving forest values and benefits + psychological mechanisms other than material payoffs and obedience (e.g. logging concessions) Type 5 = Increasing linkages between multiple stakeholders to improve governance (e.g. MSP) Type 6 = government actors + aimed at improving governance (e.g. EFT) Type 7 = End-consumers + demand (e.g. consumer awareness campaigns) Type 8 = intermediate supply-chain actors + demand (e.g. disclosure) Type 9 = increasing values of forests and the benefits of forest-friendly activities + material payoffs + broader range of supply-chain actors (e.g. subsidies) Type 10 reduce the benefits of forest-degrading activities + material payoffs + broader range of supply-chain actors (e.g. reduction of credit access)
  9. Next steps
  10. Improving the typology based on feedback from GCS REDD+ target countries  Does the classification method make sense, including in particular the list of attributes and sub-attributes?  Do we forget any policy and measure that influence forest fate in Indonesia?  Does the current classification in 10 types makes sense in the Indonesian context?
  11. Adding the context dimension  The global typology is just one step towards generating information that is useful for policy makers:  what policy and measure is more likely to be effective in what context?  Need to add the context dimension by:  Summarizing the information generated by the impact evaluation literature  And using a systematic framework to characterize context characteristics Source: Ostrom and Cox 2010
  12. | | | The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and World Agroforestry (ICRAF) envision a more equitable world where forestry and landscapes enhance the environment and well-being for all. CIFOR–ICRAF are CGIAR Research Centers. Terima kasih