The REDD+ policy arena in Vietnam: Participation of policy actors

Ecology and Society

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2014, Pages

  Pham, Thuy T ^a   Di Gregorio, Monica ^b   Carmenta, Rachel ^a   Brockhaus, Maria ^a   Le, Dung N ^a  

^a CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY RESEARCH   (Indonesia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Inclusion; Participation; Policy networks; Vietnam

Indexed keywords

ACCOUNTABILITY; CARBON EMISSION; DECISION MAKING; DEFORESTATION; DEGRADATION; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH;

VIET NAM;

EID: 84903718252     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17083087     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5751/ES-06389-190222     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Abels, G. 2007. Citizen involvement in public policy-making: does it improve democratic legitimacy and accountability? The case of pTA. Interdisciplinary Information Sciences 13(1): 103-116.
2. Amerasinghe, M., L. Farrell, S. Jin, N. Shin, and K. Stelljes. 2008. Enabling environmental justice: assessment of participatory tools. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. [online] URL: http://web. mit. edu/jcarmin/www/carmin/EnablingEJ. pdf.
3. Angelsen, A., editor. 2008. Moving ahead with REDD: issues, options and implications. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia. [online] URL: http://www. cifor. org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BAngelsen0801. pdf.
4. Arnstein, S. R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 35(4): 216-224. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1080/01944366908977225.
5. Batagelj, V., and A. Mrvar. 1997. Pajek: program for large network analysis. University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia. [online] URL: http://pajek. imfm. si/doku. php?id=pajek.
6. Berardo, R., and T. J. Scholz. 2010. Self-organizing policy networks: risk, partner selection, and cooperation in estuaries. American Journal of Political Science 54(3): 632-649. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1111/j. 1540-5907. 2010. 00451. x.
7. Biermann, F., and A. Gupta. 2011. Accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance: a research framework. Ecological Economics 70(11): 1856-1864. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. ecolecon. 2011. 04. 008.
8. Bifulco, L. 2013. Citizen participation, agency and voice. European Journal of Social Theory 16(2): 174-187. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1177/1368431012459695.
9. Black-Hawkins, K. 2010. The framework for participation: a research tool for exploring the relationship between achievement and inclusion in schools. International Journal of Research and Method in Education 33(1): 21-40. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1080/17437271003597907.
10. Borgatti, S. P., and M. G. Everett. 1997. Network analysis of 2-mode data. Social Networks 19: 243-269. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/S0378-8733(96)00301-2.
11. Borgatti, S. P., M. G. Everett, and L. C. Freeman. 2002. UCINet for Windows: software for social network analysis. Analytic Technologies, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
12. Bourgoin, J., J.-C. Castella, C. Hett, G. Lestrelin, and A. Heinimann. 2013. Engaging local communities in low emissions land-use planning: a case study from Laos. Ecology and Society 18(2): 9. http://dx. doi. org/10. 5751/ES-05362-180209.
13. Brechin, S. R., P. R. Wilshusen, C. L. Fortwangler, and P. C. West, editors. 2003. Contested nature: promoting international biodiversity with social justice in the twenty-first century. State University of New York Press, Albany, New York, USA.
14. Brockhaus, M., and M. Di Gregorio. 2012. A brief overview: component 1 on national REDD+ policies and processes. InfoBrief No. 13. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia. [online] URL: http://www. cifor. org/publications/pdf_files/infobrief/3858-infobrief. pdf.
15. Chaskin, R., A. Khare, and M. Joseph. 2012. Participation, deliberation and decision making: the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in mixed income developments. Urban Affairs Review 48(6): 863-906. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1177/1078087412450151.
16. Chhatre, A., S. Lakhanpal, A. M. Larson, F. Nelson, H. Ojha, and J. Rao. 2012. Social safeguards and co-benefits in REDD+: a review of the adjacent possible. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 4(6): 654-660. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. cosust. 2012. 08. 006.
17. Corbera, E., and H. Schroeder. 2011. Governing and implementing REDD+. Environmental Science and Policy 14: 89-99. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. envsci. 2010. 11. 002.
18. Cornwall, A. 2008. Unpacking 'participation': models, meanings and practices. Community Development Journal 43(3): 269-283. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1093/cdj/bsn010.
19. Court, J., E. Mendizabal, D. Osborne, and J. Young. 2006. Policy engagement: how civil society can be more effective. Overseas Development Institute, London, UK. [online] URL: http://www. odi. org. uk/sites/odi. org. uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinionfiles/200. pdf.
20. Dalby, S. 2005. Political space: autonomy, liberalism, and empire. Alternatives 30(4): 415-441. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1177/030437540503000402.
21. de Jong, W., D. S. Do, and V. H. Trieu. 2006. Forest rehabilitation in Vietnam: histories, realities and future. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia. [online] URL: http://www. cifor. org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BDeJong0601. pdf.
22. Edwards, R. W., P. Jumper-Thurman, B. A. Plested, E. R. Oetting, and L. Swanson. 2000. Community readiness: research to practice. Journal of Community Psychology 28(3): 291-307. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1002/(SICI)1520-6629(200005)28: 3<291:: AID-JCOP5>3. 3. CO; 2-0.
23. Fiorina, M. P. 1999. Extreme voices: a dark side of civic engagement. Pages 395-425 in T. Skocpol and M. P. Fiorina, editors. Civic engagement in American democracy. Brookings Institution, Washington, D. C., USA. [online] URL: http://www. stanford. edu/~mfiorina/Fiorina%20Web%20Files/DarkSide. pdf.
24. Government of Vietnam. 2009. Decision 2614/QD-BNN-LN: establishment of the national network and working group for reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD). Government of Vietnam, Hanoi, Vietnam. [online] URL: http://vietnam-redd. org/Upload/Download/File/Decision_for_establishment_of_REDD_Network_EN_5526. pdf.
25. Government of Vietnam. 2012. Decision 779/QÄ!-TTg dated on 27 June 2012 on national action plan for emission reduction through reducing deforestation, forest degradation, sustainable management of forest resources, conservation and improvement of forest carbon stock period 2011-2020. Government of Vietnam, Hanoi, Vietnam. [online] URL: http://www. vietnam-redd. org/Upload/Download/File/799-QD-TTg_En_3104. pdf.
26. Groom, B., and C. Palmer. 2012. REDD+ and rural livelihoods. Biological Conservation 154: 42-52. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. biocon. 2012. 03. 002.
27. Gupta, A., E. Lövbrand, E. Turnhout, and M. J. Vijge. 2012. In pursuit of carbon accountability: the politics of REDD+ measuring, reporting and verification systems. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 4(6): 726-731. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. cosust. 2012. 10. 004.
28. Hampton, G. 2004. Enhancing public participation through narrative analysis. Policy Sciences 37(3-4): 261-276. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1007/s11077-005-1763-1.
29. Hayes, T., and L. Persha. 2010. Nesting local forestry initiatives: revisiting community forest management in a REDD+ world. Forest Policy and Economics 12: 545-553. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. forpol. 2010. 07. 003.
30. Hayward, C., L. Simpson, and L. Wood. 2004. Still left out in the cold: problematising participatory research and development. Sociologia Ruralis 44(1): 95-108. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1111/j. 1467-9523. 2004. 00264. x.
31. Hirschi, C., U. Serdült, C. Vögeli, and T. Widmer. 2005. The Actor-Process-Event Scheme (APES): issues of validity and reliability for network applications. Second Conference on Applications of Social Network Analysis, 20-21 October 2005. Zurich, Switzerland. [online] URL: http://www. apes-tool. ch/assets/files/paper_Zurich. pdf.
32. Houtzager, P. P., and J. Pattenden. 1999. Finding the shape of the mountain: when "the poor" set the agenda. Workshop on Political Systems and Poverty Alleviation 16-17 August 1999, Castle Donnington, UK. Governance Division of the UK Department for International Development (DFID), East Kilbride, UK.
33. Larson, A. M. 2011. Forest tenure reform in the age of climate change: lessons for REDD+. Global Environmental Change 21: 540-549. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. gloenvcha. 2010. 11. 008.
34. Lederer, M. 2011. From CDM to REDD+: what do we know for setting up effective and legitimate carbon governance? Ecological Economics 70: 1900-1907. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. ecolecon. 2011. 02. 003.
35. Lyster, R. 2011. REDD+, transparency, participation and resource rights: the role of law. Environmental Science and Policy 14: 118-126. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. envsci. 2010. 11. 008.
36. Marochi, B. 2010. Political inclusion and representative claim making in participatory governance: case studies from Birmingham and Copenhagen. Dissertation. Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark. [online] URL: http://rudar. ruc. dk//bitstream/1800/6346/4/BelisaThesisFinal2March. pdf.
37. McDermott, C. L., L. Coad, A. Helfgott, and H. Schroeder. 2012. Operationalizing social safeguards in REDD+: actors, interests and ideas. Environmental Science and Policy 21: 63-72. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. envsci. 2012. 02. 007.
38. Murphy, D. 2011. Safeguards and multiple benefits in a REDD+ mechanism. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. [online] URL: http://www. iisd. org/pdf/2011/redd_safeguards. pdf.
39. Mustalahti, I., A. Bolin, E. Boyd, and J. Paavola. 2012. Can REDD+ reconcile local priorities and needs with global mitigation benefits? Lessons from Angai Forest, Tanzania. Ecology and Society 17(1): 16. http://dx. doi. org/10. 5751/ES-04498-170116.
40. O'Brien, K. J., and L. Li. 2006. Rightful resistance in rural China. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
41. Pham, T. T., B. M. Campbell, S. Garnet, H. Aslin, and M. H. Hoang. 2010. Importance and impacts of intermediary boundary organisations in facilitating payment for environmental services in Vietnam. Environmental Conservation 37(1): 64-72. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1017/S037689291000024X.
42. Pham, T. T., M. M. Moeliono, T. H. Nguyen, H. T. Nguyen, and T. H. Vu. 2012. The context of REDD+ in Vietnam: drivers, agents, and institutions. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia. [online] URL: http://www. cifor. org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-75. pdf.
43. Phelps, J., M. C. Guerrero, D. A. Dalabajan, B. Young, and E. L. Webb. 2010. What makes a 'REDD' country? Global Environmental Change 20(2): 322-332. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. gloenvcha. 2010. 01. 002.
44. Phillips, A. 1995. The politics of presence. Clarendon, Oxford, UK. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1093/0198294158. 001. 0001.
45. Pretty, J. N. 1995. Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development 23(8): 1247-1263. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/0305-750X(95)00046-F.
46. Quick, S. K., and S. M. Feldman. 2011. Distinguishing participation and inclusion. Journal of Planning Education and Research 31(3): 271-290. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1177/0739456X11410979.
47. Raik, D. B., and D. J. Decker. 2007. A multisector framework for assessing community-based forest management: lessons from Madagascar. Ecology and Society 12(1): 14. [online] URL: http://www. ecologyandsociety. org/vol12/iss1/art14/.
48. Shortall, S. 2008. Are rural development programmes socially inclusive? Social inclusion, civic engagement, participation, and social capital: exploring the differences. Journal of Rural Studies 24(4): 450-457. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. jrurstud. 2008. 01. 001.
49. Sikor, T. 2010. REDD-plus, forest people's rights and nested climate governance. Global Environmental Change 20(3): 423-425. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. gloenvcha. 2010. 04. 007.
50. Stringer, L. C., A. J. Dougill, E. Fraser, K. Hubacek, C. Prell, and M. S. Reed. 2006. Unpacking 'participation' in the adaptive management of social-ecological systems: a critical review. Ecology and Society 11(2): 39. [online] URL: http://www. ecologyandsociety. org/vol11/iss2/art39/.
51. Thompson, M. C., M. Baruah, and E. R. Carr. 2011. Seeing REDD+ as a project of environmental governance. Environmental Science and Policy 14: 100-110. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. envsci. 2010. 11. 006.
52. Tilly, C., and S. Tarrow. 2006. Contentious politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
53. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2010. The Cancun agreements: outcome of the work of the ad Hoc working group on long-term cooperative action under the Convention, decision 1/CP 16, UNFCCC/CP/2010/7/add. 1. Report of the Conference of the parties on its sixteenth session. November 29-December 10, 2010. Cancun, Mexico. United Nations Framework on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany. [online] URL: http://unfccc. int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01. pdf.
54. Vatn, A., and O. P. Vedeld. 2013. National governance structures for REDD+. Global Environmental Change 23(2): 422-432. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. gloenvcha. 2012. 11. 005.
55. VeneKlasen, L., and V. Miller. 2002. A new wave of power, people and politics: the action guide for advocacy and citizen participation. Practical Action, Warwickshire, UK.
56. Verba, S., and N. H. Nie. 1972. Participation in America: social equality and political democracy. Harper and Row, New York, New York, USA.
57. Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., C. McDermott, M. J. Vijge, and B. Cashore. 2012. Trade-offs, co-benefits and safeguards: current debates on the breadth of REDD+. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 4(6): 646-653. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. cosust. 2012. 10. 005.
58. Wells-Dang, A. 2010. Political space in Vietnam: a view from the 'rice-roots.' Pacific Review 23(1): 93-112. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1080/09512740903398355.
59. Wells-Dang, A. 2005. Migrant workers in Vietnam's industrial zones. Action Aid, Hanoi, Vietnam.
60. White, S. C. 1996. Depoliticising development: the uses and abuses of participation. Development in Practice 6(1): 6-15. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1080/0961452961000157564.