Environmental Sciences & Ecology
; Public Administration
英文摘要:
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) has emerged as a promising climate change mitigation mechanism in developing countries. In order to identify the enabling conditions for achieving progress in the implementation of an effective, efficient and equitable REDD+, this paper examines national policy settings in a comparative analysis across 13 countries with a focus on both institutional context and the actual setting of the policy arena. The evaluation of REDD+ revealed that countries across Africa, Asia and Latin America are showing some progress, but some face backlashes in realizing the necessary transformational change to tackle deforestation and forest degradation. A Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) undertaken as part of the research project showed two enabling institutional configurations facilitating progress: (1) the presence of already initiated policy change; and (2) scarcity of forest resources combined with an absence of any effective forestry framework and policies. When these were analysed alongside policy arena conditions, the paper finds that the presence of powerful transformational coalitions combined with strong ownership and leadership, and performance-based funding, can both work as a strong incentive for achieving REDD+ goals. Key policy insights The positive push of already existing policy change, or the negative stress of resource scarcity together with lack of effective policies, represents institutional conditions that can support REDD+ progress. Progress also requires the presence of powerful transformational coalitions and strong ownership and leadership. In the absence of these internal drivers, performance-based funding can work as a strong incentive. When comparing three assessments (2012, 2014, 2016) of REDD+ enabling conditions, some progress in establishing processes of change can be observed over time; however, the overall fluctuation in progress of most countries reveals the difficulty in changing the deforestation trajectory away from business as usual.
1.CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia 2.Univ Helsinki, Ctr Environm, Helsinki, Finland 3.Univ Helsinki, Dept Forest Sci, Helsinki, Finland 4.IHE Delft Inst Water Educ, Delft, Netherlands 5.Univ Leeds, Sustainabil Res Inst, Sch Earth & Environm, Leeds, W Yorkshire, England 6.Cent Africa Forest Commiss COMIFAC, Yaounde, Cameroon 7.La Trobe Univ, Inst Human Secur & Social Change, Melbourne, Vic, Australia 8.Wondo Genet Coll Forestry & Nat Resources, Wondo Genet, Ethiopia 9.Iwokrama, Kingston Georgetown, Guyana 10.ForestAct Nepal, Patan, Nepal 11.SEED, Oxford, England 12.Univ Cape Town, Dept Sociol, EHS, Cape Town, South Africa 13.Eduardo Mondlane Univ Maputo, Fac Agron & Forestry, Ctr Agr & Nat Resource Studies CEAGRE, Maputo, Mozambique
Recommended Citation:
Korhonen-Kurki, Kaisa,Brockhaus, Maria,Sehring, Jenniver,et al. What drives policy change for REDD plus ? A qualitative comparative analysis of the interplay between institutional and policy arena factors[J]. CLIMATE POLICY,2019-01-01,19(3):315-328