Can Forest-protection carbon projects improve rural livelihoods? Analysis of the Noel Kempff Mercado climate action project,Bolivia

We studied the Noel KempffMercado Climate Action Project (NKMCAP),Bolivia, to assess whether forestprotection carbon (C) projects cansignificantly benefit local people. Wehypothesized that forest protection canonly securely deliver C if significantstakeholders are meaningfully andtransparently involved, traditional orcustomary rights are recognized and theirloss compensated for, and there are directlinkages between conservation anddevelopment objective. Our researchfocused on 53 members of the communities ofFlorida, Porvenir and Piso Firme and 36secondary stakeholders. In each of thevillages we held half-day meetings withcommunity leaders, complemented bysemi-structured one-hour interviews with 5,10, and 7 families, representing 20%, 10%and 8% of each community. The long-termimpact of the NKMCAP on the localcommunities may well be positive. However,in the short run, certain sections of thelocal communities are financially poorer. Forest protection projects clearly have thepotential to sequester C, protectbiodiversity and simultaneously contributeto sustainable rural development, but ifthey really are to improve rurallivelihoods, they must be designed andimplemented carefully and participatively.     

Developing an interdisciplinary and cross‐sectoral community of practice in the domain of forests and livelihoods

Although significant resources are being spent researching and fostering the relationship between forests and livelihoods to promote mutually beneficial outcomes, critical gaps in understanding persist. A core reason for such gaps is that researchers, practitioners, and policy makers lack the structured space to interact and collaborate, which is essential for effective, interdisciplinary research, practice, and evaluation. Thus, scientific findings, policy recommendations, and measured outcomes have not always been synthesized into deep, systemic understanding; learning from practice and implementation does not easily find its way into scientific analyses, and science often fails to influence policy. Communities of practice (CofPs) are dynamic sociocultural systems that bring people together to share and create knowledge around a common topic of interest. They offer participants a space and structure within which to develop new, systemic approaches to multidimensional problems on a common theme. Uniquely informed by a systems‐thinking perspective and drawing from the scientific and gray literatures and in‐depth interviews with representatives of established CofPs in the natural resource management and development domain, we argue that a well‐designed and adequately funded CofP can facilitate interdisciplinary and cross‐sectoral relationships and knowledge exchange. Well‐designed CofPs integrate a set of core features and processes to enhance individual, collective, and domain outcomes; they set out an initial but evolving purpose, encourage diverse leadership, and promote collective‐identity development. Funding facilitates effective communication strategies (e.g., in person meetings). We urge our colleagues across sectors and disciplines to take advantage of CofPs to advance the domain of forests and livelihoods.     

Selection and integration of environmental impacts in the Danish transport infrastructure assessment process

Transport projects have numerous consequences for the environment, society and economy, and thus an EU Directive has stated a number of impacts that need to be assessed prior to any major intervention. This paper is set in a Danish context where the EU requirements have been adopted in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regulation along with national requirements. In recent years, however, the EIAs have been criticised for an inconsistent inclusion of impacts and unclear assessment process. A selection of EIAs is for this reason reviewed and compared to the EU Directive and corresponding works in Sweden and the UK to identify potential opportunities for improvements. From the literature study, an overview table with all potential relevant impacts for transport projects is set up to assist the EIA process. For the sake of simplicity and transparency, the impacts selected from this table should, however, be further reduced in number to ensure that only the most important impacts are included in the process. To further increase simplicity and transparency in the EIA process, a novel framework for assessing different types of impacts is proposed. In this framework, a comprehensive decision support tool involving stakeholders is in focus. The framework is supplemented with a procedure for generating objectives and presenting results in an appropriate way to the many stakeholders involved. The impacts overview table and the assessment techniques are applied to a case study to illustrate the process, and finally, conclusions and perspectives for future work within the field are set out.     

Responding to a policy mandate to collaborate: structuring collaboration in the collaborative forest landscape restoration program

The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) aims to expand the pace and scale of forest restoration on national forests in the United States. The program requires candidate projects to develop landscape-scale forest restoration proposals through a collaborative process and continue to collaborate throughout planning, implementation, and monitoring. Our comparative case analysis of the initial selected projects examines how existing collaborative groups draw on past experience of collaboration and the requirements of a new mandate to shape collaborative structures as they undertake CFLRP work. While mandating collaboration appears contrary to what is often defined as an informal and emergent process, mandates can encourage stakeholder engagement and renew commitment to overcome past conflict. Our findings also suggest that a collaborative mandate can lead to increased attention and scrutiny, prompting adjustments to collaborative process and structure. As such, mandating collaboration creates dynamic tensions between past experience and new requirements for collaborative practice.     

The role of coalitions in disaster policymaking

Disasters have the potential to act as focusing events, which can increase the amount of attention on disaster‐related problems and encourage policy action. Understanding of the political characteristics of disaster policymaking is underdeveloped, yet it is known that these features may be dissimilar to those of non‐disaster policy areas, especially concerning the coalitions of policy actors engaged in the disaster policy process. Coalitions in the realm of disaster policy processes may be less likely to form, may look very different, and may have different goals than those in non‐disaster domains. Knowledge of the emergence, composition, and purpose of coalitions in disaster policy is lacking. This paper draws on prior theory and case observations to define and describe the characteristics of a disaster policy subsystem and to build a typology of coalitions that may appear within such a subsystem, providing a foundation upon which scholars can work to study coalition dynamics in disaster policy subsystems.     

Simulative governance: on the collaborative narrative of civil society participation in the CDM stakeholder framework

The Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is often cited as an exemplar of new, hybrid forms of global environmental governance operating at the public–private interface. Practically, enacting this arrangement involves a wide range of non-state actors. This broad involvement is here assumed to mark a shift towards more polycentric and networked modes of governance in which agents collaborate as ‘stakeholders’ in the process of consensual rule-setting and implementation. Using post-political critique, the depoliticising effects of the stakeholder framework on civil society actors are interrogated, using formal and informal participation opportunities to raise concerns regarding specific CDM projects. The analysis suggests that the CDM’s collaborative narrative of stakeholding structurally fails to stimulate public (re)engagement and is, instead, a prime example of simulative governance that struggles to achieve the simultaneity of two incompatibilities: the participatory revolution and the post-political turn.     

A scenario-based study on information flow and collaboration patterns in disaster management

Disaster management (DM) is a continuous, highly collaborative process involving governments, DM organisations, responders, the construction sector, and the general public. Most research approaches to DM include the development of information and communication technologies (ICT) to support the collaboration process rather than the creation of a collaboration process to provide information flows and patterns. An Intelligent Disaster Collaboration System (IDCS) is introduced in this paper as a conceptual model to integrate ICT into DM and the mitigation process and to enhance collaboration. The framework is applicable to the collaboration process at the local, regional and national levels. Within this context, the deployment of ICT tools in DM is explored and scenario-based case studies on flooding and terrorism—examples of natural and human-induced disasters, respectively—are presented. Conclusions are drawn regarding the differences found in collaboration patterns and ICT used during natural and human-induced disasters and the differences between currently available ICT and proposed ICT.     

Social learning in a policy-mandated collaboration: community wildfire protection planning in the eastern United States

Policies such as the US Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) mandate collaboration in planning to create benefits such as social learning and shared understanding among partners. However, some question the ability of top-down policy to foster successful local collaboration. Through in-depth interviews and document analysis, this paper investigates social learning and transformative learning in three case studies of Community Wildfire Protection Planning (CWPP), a policy-mandated collaboration under HFRA. Not all CWPP groups engaged in social learning. Those that did learned most about organisational priorities and values through communicative learning. Few participants gained new skills or knowledge through instrumental learning. CWPP groups had to commit to learning, but the design of the collaborative-mandate influenced the type of learning that was most likely to occur. This research suggests a potential role for top-down policy in setting the structural context for learning at the local level, but also confirms the importance of collaborative context and process in fostering social learning.     

Constraints to Watershed Planning: Group Structure and Process1

Floress, Kristin, Jean C. Mangun, Mae A. Davenport, and Karl W.J. Williard, 2009. Constraints to Watershed Planning: Group Structure and Process. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 45(6):1352‐1360. Abstract: The roles that agencies and other partners play in collaborative watershed management are not always clearly identified. Key factors contributing to group‐level outcomes in watershed groups include both structural and procedural elements. Structural elements include membership systems, project partners, and funding, while procedural elements include leadership, shared vision, and mission development. The current research reports on a case study conducted with a Midwestern watershed group that received Clean Water Act Section 319 funds to undertake a watershed planning process. Data come from focus groups, interviews, public comments, and meeting observation, and were analyzed using grounded theory. Findings of this study indicate that homogenous skill set, discord over group and partner roles, and failed problem identification contributed to the organizational inertia experienced by the watershed group. Implications of this research for groups receiving 319 funds are provided.     

ASSEMBLY OF MAP‐BASED STREAM NARRATIVES TO FACILITATE STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT1

ABSTRACT: Watershed stewardship activities throughout North America have evolved into a process that requires more involvement in planning and decision making by community stakeholders. Active involvement of all stakeholders in the process of watershed stewardship is dependent on effective exchange of information among participants, and active involvement of a wide range of stakeholders from “communities of place” as well as those from “communities of interest.” We developed a map‐based stream narrative tool as a means to: (a) assemble a wealth of incompletely documented, “traditional” ecological or natural history observations for rivers or streams; and (b) promote a higher level of active involvement by community stakeholders in contributing to information‐based, watershed management. Creation of stream narratives is intended for use as a tool to actively engage local stakeholders in the development of a more comprehensive information system to improve management for multiple stewardship objectives in watersheds. Completion of map‐based stream narrative atlases provides a valuable supplement to other independent efforts to assemble observations and knowledge about land‐based natural resources covering entire watersheds. We are confident that completion of stream narrative projects will make a valuable addition to the information and decision making tools that are currently available to the public and resource agencies interested in advancing the cause of community‐based approaches to watershed and ecosystem management.