|
Advocacy coalitions (promoting transformational change [TC] or business as usual [BAU]) |
Influence score (percentage of policy actors that nominated this coalition) | REDD+ policy preferences |
Coalition resources (adapted from Weible [2006] and Sabatier and Weible [2007]) |
Coalition members (number of organizations out of actor group; percentage of actor group) |
|
Sustainable development (TC) |
14.33 (32%) |
•That REDD+ covers opportunity costs of forest conservation •Economic diversification/“green growth” •Governance and institutional reform •Evidence-based/good public policy |
•Formal legal authority to make policy decisions •Information •Financial resources |
•Donors (n=10; 100%) •Research institutions (n=8; 100%) •Domestic NGOs (n=5; 50%) •Int. NGOs (n=5; 50%) •Government (n=3; 25%) •Private sector (n=3; 25%) •Int. organizations (n=1; 50%) |
|
Sustainable livelihoods (TC) |
14.00 (31%) |
•Social and environmental safeguards •Multistakeholder governance •Information and awareness raising for resource owners •Equitable benefit-sharing arrangements •Community-based REDD+ |
•Public opinion •Information •Supporters that can be mobilized |
•Domestic NGOs (n=9; 75%) •International NGOs (n=5; 50%) •Private sector (n=1; 8%) |
|
Status quo (BAU) |
20.42 (45%) |
•No halt to commercial logging •Reduced impact logging/secondary forest management as part of REDD+ •No voluntary carbon projects •Central government coordination/control •Minimal conditions on international funds |
•Formal legal authority to make policy decisions •Information •Financial resources |
•Government (n=8; 67%) •Private sector (n=4; 33%) |
|
Carbon entrepreneurs (BAU) |
12.33 (27%) |
•Policy to support voluntary carbon projects •Little central government control/oversight (projects negotiated directly with resource owners) •No focus on governance reforms or building enabling environment |
•Information •Financial resources |
•Private sector (n=4; 33%) •International organizations (n=1; 50%) •Government (n=1; 8%) |