- international initiatives such as the European Union’s Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan (including the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA)), and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+)
- regional programs including the Lancang–Mekong Cooperation, ASEAN Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (FLEG)
- national efforts, for instance Lao PDR Forest Strategy 2020, national community forestry programs (e.g., Myanmar’s Community Forestry Strategy (Table 1)).
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Theoretical Framework
2.2. Research Process
- Dawna Tenasserim Landscape (DTL)–covering Tanintharyi Nature Reserve (Myanmar) and Western Forest Complex (Thailand)
- Northern Thailand–Lao Transboundary Landscape (NTLL): covering Doi Phu Kha National Park (Thailand) and Nam Pouy National Protected Area (Lao PDR)
- Transboundary Vietnam–Lao-Cambodia Landscape (VLCL): covering (a) Eastern Plains Landscape (Cambodia bordering with Vietnam); (b) Kon Tum province, Central Annamites; Quang Nam province, Central Highlands (Vietnam bordering Cambodia and Lao PDR); and, (c) Xe Pian and Dong Amphan National Biodiversity Conservation Areas (Lao PDR).
- Introduction of research to key stakeholders. This aimed to introduce the participants to the work, create a general understanding of forest governance in the region, its importance and the key issues and opportunities, as well as to introduce the EEAT. This involved background research workshops (Table A1). The regional workshop was held in April 2017, with national and landscape level workshops being held in May to June 2017. The participants in the regional workshop were mainly from civil society working at international and national levels. The national level workshops focused on actors working at national levels, while the landscape level workshops mainly focused on actors working at the landscape levels.The regional workshop’s introduction to the EEAT tool included assessing of the appropriateness of the indicators for the research process. The participants were representatives from national CSOs from the GMS countries.
- Data collection. This aimed to capture and understand the perceptions of key stakeholders of forest governance in each country. This involved the participants scoring each of the indicators (1–5) following discussions. Their explanations for each answer were also documented. Workshops were conducted at national and landscape levels in all five GMS countries (in Vietnam the national and landscape level workshops were combined) (Table A2). All the data collection workshops were multi-stakeholder by design to facilitate learning between groups. These were held between September 2017 and February 2018.
- Results sharing. This step aimed to develop a shared understanding of the findings of the assessment, as well as identify priority activities to address the challenges and opportunities identified. Workshops were again held in each country, except Cambodia and Vietnam where the data collection workshop had an extra day for results sharing and identifying priority actions for addressing (Table A3). In Myanmar and Thailand there were three results sharing workshops, two of which involved multiple stakeholders, while another was held in each country with only participants from non-state actors (NSAs), mainly, civil society and international NGOs. The decision to hold an additional workshop with only NSA representatives was made in each country based on the desire to further explore the potential role of NSAs in strengthening forest governance. These were held between March 2018 and July 2018.
3.1. General Findings
3.2. Pillar 1. Policy, Legal, and Institutional Framework
3.3. Pillar 2. Planning and Decision-Making Processes
3.4. Pillar 3. Implementation, Enforcement, and Compliance
4.1. Summary of Findings
4.2. Methodological Challenges
4.3. Implications of the Findings and Moving Forward
- Development of a forest governance monitoring system to help address the limited access by civil society and news media, as well as government offices, to information related to forest governance. The system should be accessible to all stakeholders at landscape, national and regional levels, for inputting and accessing information. The system could be designed to build on the numerous international (e.g., LandPortal, Forest Legality Initiative, EFI FLEGT and REDD+ Facilities), national (e.g., national VPA and REDD+ programs) and landscape (community forest monitoring) level projects and programs.
- Capacity development program for non-state actors to support efforts to strengthen forest governance. The program would need to address the fact that advocates and watchdogs for good governance are working in a highly sensitive environment in the GMS countries. The program can also include components on operational management, and technical skills and knowledge (e.g., on FLEGT VPA).
- Awareness raising for supporting informed decision-making by consumers of forest products in the GMS recognizing they can be key agents of change if they make efforts to buy forest products from sustainable sources, and the impacts this will have (e.g., having a reliable system to demonstrate the legality of the product).
Conflicts of Interest
|Number of Workshops||Participants from National and Subnational Government Offices||Participants from National Civil Society Organizations||Others||Total|
|Number of Workshops||National and Subnational Government Offices||National Civil Society Organizations||Others||Total|
|Number of Workshops||National and Subnational Government Office||National Civil Society Organizations||Others||Total|
- Biddulph, R.; Amberntsson, P. Whose Reality Counts? Critical Junctures in Livelihood Trajectories under Deforestation. J. Econ. Soc. Geogr. 2017, 108, 540–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hirsch, P.; Scurrah, N. The Political Economy of Land Governance in the Mekong Region: Contexts of Policy Advocacy (Conference Paper No. 48); Land Grabbing, Conflict and Agrarian-Environmental Transformations: Perspectives from East and Southeast Asia; Chiang Mai University, The Regional Center for Social Science and Sustainable Development: Chiang Mai, Thailand, 2015; Available online: https://www.iss.nl/sites/corporate/files/CMCP_48-Hirsch___Scurrah.pdf (accessed on 10 September 2018).
- Rosa, I.M.D.; Smith, M.J.; Wearn, O.R.; Purves, D.; Ewers, R.M. The Environmental Legacy of Modern Tropical Deforestation. Curr. Biol. 2016, 26, 2161–2166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Lawrence, D.; Vandecar, K. Effects of tropical deforestation on climate and agriculture. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2015, 5, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: How Are the World’s Forests Changing? Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2015; ISBN 978-92-5-109283-5. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4808e.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2018).
- Dang, T.K.P.; Visseren-Hamakers, I.J.; Arts, B. Forest devolution in Vietnam: From rhetoric to performance. Land Use Policy 2018, 77, 760–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Transparency International. Corruption Perceptions Index 2017. 2018. Available online: https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2017 (accessed on 6 December 2018).
- The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index. 2018. Available online: https://infographics.economist.com/2018/DemocracyIndex/ (accessed on 6 December 2018).
- RECOFTC; AWG-SF. Social Forestry and Climate Change in the ASEAN Region; RECOFTC—The Center for People and Forests & ASEAN Working Group on Social Forestry (AWG-SF): Bangkok, Thailand, 2017; ISBN 978-616-8089-01-9. Available online: https://www.recoftc.org/publications/0000156 (accessed on 20 December 2018).
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Forest Change in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS): An Overview of Negative and Positive Drivers; Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations: Bangkok, Thailand, 2017; ISBN 978-92-5-109911-7. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7758e.pdf (accessed on 19 October 2018).
- Rudra, N.; Jensen, N.M. Globalization and the Politics of Natural Resources. Comp. Political Stud. 2011, 44, 639–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peluso, N.L.; Vandergeest, P. Genealogies of the political forest and customary rights in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. J. Asian Stud. 2001, 60, 761–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suwarno, A.; Hein, L.; Sumarga, E. Governance, Decentralisation and Deforestation: The Case of Central Kalimantan Province, Indonesia. Q. J. Int. Agric. 2015, 54, 77–100. [Google Scholar]
- Agrawal, A.; Chhatre, A.; Hardin, R. Changing Governance of the World’s Forests. Science 2008, 320, 1460–1462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fox, J.; Castella, J.-C.; Ziegler, A.D. Swidden, rubber and carbon: Can REDD+ work for people and the environment in Montane Mainland Southeast Asia? Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 29, 318–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Fisher, R. Environmental governance and decentralisation. In Routledge Handbook of the Environment in Southeast Asia; Taylor & Francis: New York, NY, USA, 2016; ISBN 0-415-62521-1. [Google Scholar]
- Giessen, L.; Buttoud, G. Defining and Assessing Forest Governance. For. Policy Econ. 2014, 49, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paley, R. Managing protected areas in Cambodia: The challenge for conservation bureaucracies in a hostile governance environment. In Conservation and Development in Cambodia; Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2015; pp. 159–177. ISBN 978-1-134-58116-0. [Google Scholar]
- Sundström, A. Understanding illegality and corruption in forest governance. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 181, 779–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gritten, D.; Greijmans, M.; Lewis, S.; Sokchea, T.; Atkinson, J.; Quang, T.; Poudyal, B.; Chapagain, B.; Sapkota, L.; Mohns, B.; et al. An Uneven Playing Field: Regulatory Barriers to Communities Making a Living from the Timber from Their Forests–Examples from Cambodia, Nepal and Vietnam. Forests 2015, 6, 3433–3451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Dhiaulhaq, A.; De Bruyn, T.; Gritten, D. The use and effectiveness of mediation in forest and land conflict transformation in Southeast Asia: Case studies from Cambodia, Indonesia and Thailand. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 45, 132–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cashore, B.; Stone, M.W. Can legality verification rescue global forest governance? For. Policy Econ. 2012, 18, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kanowski, P.J.; McDermott, C.L.; Cashore, B.W. Implementing REDD+: Lessons from analysis of forest governance. Environ. Sci. Policy 2011, 14, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larson, A.M. Forests for People: Community Rights and Forest Tenure Reform; Earthscan: London, UK; Washington, DC, USA, 2010; ISBN 978-1-84407-917-9. [Google Scholar]
- The Program on Forests (PROFOR); Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Framework for Assessing and Monitoring Forest Governance; The Program on Forests (PROFOR) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2011; Available online: http://www.fao.org/climatechange/27526-0cc61ecc084048c7a9425f64942df70a8.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2018).
- Davis, C.; Williams, L.; Lupberger, S.; Daviet, F. Assessing Forest Governance: The Governance of Forests Initiative Indicator Framework; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2013; ISBN 978-1-56973-815-3. Available online: https://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/assessing_forest_governance.pdf?_ga=2.219833566.63879830.1543977624-744930913.1543537274. (accessed on 20 December 2018).
- Kishor, N.; Rosenbaum, K. Assessing and Monitoring Forest Governance: A User’s Guide to a Diagnostic Tool; PROFOR: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; ISBN 978-0-9855195-2-0. Available online: https://www.profor.info/sites/profor.info/files/AssessingMonitoringForestGovernance-guide.pdf (accessed on 5 December 2018).
- Situmorang, A.W.; Nababan, A.; Kartodihardjo, H.; Khatarina, J.; Santosa, M.A.; Safitri, M.; Soeprihanto, P.; Effendi, S.; Sunaryo. Participatory Governance Assessment: The 2012 Indonesia Forest, Land, and REDD+ Governance Index; United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Indonesia: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2013; ISBN 978-602-96539-6-0. Available online: http://www.id.undp.org/content/indonesia/en/home/library/environment_energy/participatory-governance-assessment--the-2012-indonesia-forest--.html (accessed on 5 December 2018).
- Michel, S. Governance of Local Forests in ENPI East Countries and Russia; International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources: Gland, Switzerland, 2016; Available online: https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/ENPI-FLEG%20II-2016-001.pdf (accessed on 5 December 2018).
- Maraseni, T.N.; Bhattarai, N.; Karky, B.S.; Cadman, T.; Timalsina, N.; Bhandari, T.S.; Apan, A.; Ma, H.O.; Rawat, R.S.; Verma, N.; et al. An assessment of governance quality for community-based forest management systems in Asia: Prioritisation of governance indicators at various scales. Land Use Policy 2019, 81, 750–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Satyal, P. Civil society participation in REDD+ and FLEGT processes: Case study analysis from Cameroon, Ghana, Liberia and the Republic of Congo. For. Policy Econ. 2018, 97, 83–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baird, I.G. Making spaces: The ethnic Brao people and the international border between Laos and Cambodia. Geoforum 2010, 41, 271–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milne, S. Cambodia’s Unofficial Regime of Extraction: Illicit Logging in the Shadow of Transnational Governance and Investment. Crit. Asian Stud. 2015, 47, 200–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, S. Borderland practices and narratives: Illegal cross-border logging in northeastern Cambodia. Ethnography 2014, 15, 135–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- To, P.; Mahanty, S.; Dressler, W. Moral economies and markets: ‘Insider’ cassava trading in Kon Tum, Vietnam: ‘Insider’ cassava trading in Kon Tum, Vietnam. Asia Pac. Viewp. 2016, 57, 168–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Bank. Worldwide Governance Indicators. 2016. Available online: http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home (accessed on 18 August 2018).
- Giessen, L.; Sarker, P.; Rahman, M. International and Domestic Sustainable Forest Management Policies: Distributive Effects on Power among State Agencies in Bangladesh. Sustainability 2016, 8, 335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhiaulhaq, A.; Yasmi, Y.; Gritten, D.; Kelley, L.; Chandet, H. Land grabbing and forest conflict in Cambodia: Implications for community and sustainable forest management. In Forests under Pressure: Local Responses to Global Issues, IUFRO World Series; International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO): Vienna, Austria, 2014; pp. 205–216. ISBN 978-3-902762-30-6. Available online: https://www.iufro.org/download/file/27949/6596/ws32-PII_ch11_Cambodia_pdf/ (accessed on 20 December 2018).
- Bastos Lima, M.G.; Visseren-Hamakers, I.J.; Braña-Varela, J.; Gupta, A. A reality check on the landscape approach to REDD+: Lessons from Latin America. For. Policy Econ. 2017, 78, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nielsen, T.D. From REDD+ forests to green landscapes? Analyzing the emerging integrated landscape approach discourse in the UNFCCC. For. Policy Econ. 2016, 73, 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sayer, J.; Sunderland, T.; Ghazoul, J.; Pfund, J.-L.; Sheil, D.; Meijaard, E.; Venter, M.; Boedhihartono, A.K.; Day, M.; Garcia, C.; et al. Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 8349–8356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Ho, V.-M.; Bonnell, B.; Kushalappa, C.G.; Mooney, C.; Sarasin, G.; Svensson, J.; Verbisky, R. Governance solutions from the International Model Forest Network. Eur. Trop. For. Res. Netw. News. 2014, 56, 26–34. [Google Scholar]
- Kane, S.; Dhiaulhaq, A.; Gritten, D.; Sapkota, L.M.; Jihadah, L. Transforming forest landscape conflicts: The promises and perils of global forest management initiatives such as REDD+. For. Soc. 2018, 2, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FERN. The Long Road to Timber Legality Taking Stock of the EU-Vietnam VPA Timber Trade Deal (Briefing Note), EU-Vietnam VPA Timber Trade Deal; FERN UK: Marsh, UK, 2018; Available online: https://fern.org/sites/default/files/news-pdf/briefingnote%20vietnam%20FINAL.pdf (accessed on 7 December 2018).
- Gilmour, D. Forty Years of Community-Based Forestry. A Review of Its Extent and Effectiveness; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2016; Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5415e.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2018).
- Satyal, P. Assessing Civil Society Participation in REDD+ and FLEGT: Case Study Analysis of Cameroon, Ghana, Liberia and the Republic of Congo, DEV Reports and Policy Paper Series; The School of International Development, University of East Anglia: Norwich UK, 2017; Available online: https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/62071/1/Assessing_Civil_Society_Participation_in_REDD_and_FLEGT_16_.pdf (accessed on 19 October 2018).
- Gritten, D.; Sikor, T.; Atkinson, J. The role of civil society organisations in the development of community forestry in Asia-Pacific. In Proceedings of the IUFRO Conference “Future Directions of Small-Scale and Community-Based Forestry”, Fukuoka, Japan, 8–13 September 2013; International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO): Fukuoka, Japan, 2014; pp. 84–95, ISBN 978-4-905324-93-5. [Google Scholar]
- Curley, M. Governing Civil Society in Cambodia: Implications of the NGO Law for the “Rule of Law”. Asian Stud. Rev. 2018, 42, 247–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mustalahti, I.; Cramm, M.; Ramcilovic-Suominen, S.; Tegegne, Y. Resources and Rules of the Game: Participation of Civil Society in REDD+ and FLEGT-VPA Processes in Lao PDR. Forests 2017, 8, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoare, A. Tackling Illegal Logging and the Related Trade: What Progress and Where Next? Chatham House Report; Chatham House: London, UK, 2015; Available online: https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/tackling-illegal-logging-and-related-trade-what-progress-and-where-next (accessed on 10 October 2018).
- To, P.X.; Mahanty, S.; Dressler, W. Social Networks of Corruption in the Vietnamese and Lao Cross-Border Timber Trade. Anthropol. Forum. 2014, 24, 154–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawson, S. Illegal Wood Import and Re-Export: The Scale of the Problem and the Response in Thailand, South Korea and India (No. 2014/01), Energy, Environment and Resources (EER PP); Chatham House: London, UK; Available online: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/home/chatham/public_html/sites/default/files/20140400IllegalWoodThailandSKIndiaLawson.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2018).
- Saunders, J. Trade in Illegal Timber: The response in Vietnam; Chatham House: London, UK, 2014; Available online: https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/trade-illegal-timber-response-vietnam (accessed on 20 December 2018).
- Forest Trends. Timber Trade Flow Maps of China and the Mekong Region. 2011. Available online: http://www.euflegt.efi.int/documents/10180/23310/Timber+Trade+Flow+Maps+of+China+and+the+Mekong+Region/1e331440-8477-4dd7-abc6-ddec9ed8b5ab (accessed on 19 October 2018).
- Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA). Data Corruption. Exposing the True Scale of Logging in Myanmar; Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA): London, UK, 2014; Available online: https://www.illegal-logging.info/sites/files/chlogging/EIA-Data-Corruption-FINAL.pdf (accessed on 19 October 2018).
- Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA). Repeat Offender: Vietnam’s Persistent Trade in Illegal Timber; Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA): London, UK, 2017; Available online: https://eia-international.org/report/repeat-offender-vietnams-persistent-trade-illegal-timber/ (accessed on 18 August 2018).
- To, P.X. State Territorialization and Illegal Logging: The Dynamic Relationships between Practices and Images of the State in Vietnam. Crit. Asian Stud. 2015, 47, 229–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, B.; Naing, A.K.; Sapkota, L.M.; Than, M.M.; Gritten, D.; Stephen, P.; Lewin, A.; Thaung, T.L. Stabilizing and Rebuilding Myanmar’s Working Forests: Multiple Stakeholders and Multiple Choices; The Nature Conservancy and RECOFTC-The Center for People and Forests: Bangkok, Thailand, 2017; Available online: https://www.recoftc.org/publications/0000315 (accessed on 20 December 2018).
- Pescott, M.; Durst, P.B. Reviewing FLEG progress in Asia and the Pacific. In Forest Law Enforcement and Governance: Progress in Asia and the Pacific; FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific Publication; Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations: Bangkok, Thailand, 2010; pp. 1–16. ISBN 1014-191X. [Google Scholar]
- Gritten, D.; Mola-Yudego, B. Blanket strategy: A response of environmental groups to the globalising forest industry. Int. J. Commons 2010, 4, 729–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Gregorio, M.; Brockhaus, M.; Cronin, T.; Muharrom, E.; Santoso, L.; Mardiah, S.; Büdenbender, M. Equity and REDD+ in the Media: A Comparative Analysis of Policy Discourses. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO-EU FLEGT Programme: Our Projects. 2018. Available online: http://www.fao.org/in-action/eu-fao-flegt-programme/our-projects/en/#/web/map (accessed on 8 August 2018).
- Vida, T. Environmental NGOs Call for EU Not to Sign Timber Deal with Vietnam. Khmer Times. 14 October 2018. Available online: https://www.khmertimeskh.com/50540154/enviromental-ngos-call-for-eu-not-to-sign-timber-deal-with-vietnam/ (accessed on 20 December 2018).
- Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Work Plan for Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (FLEG) in ASEAN, 2016–2025; Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN): Jakarta, Indonesia, 2016; Available online: https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Work-Plan-for-FLEG-in-ASEAN-2016-2025.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2018).
- APEC. Experts Group on Illegal Logging and Associated Trade. 2018. Available online: https://www.apec.org/Groups/SOM-Steering-Committee-on-Economic-and-Technical-Cooperation/Working-Groups/Illegal-Logging-and-Associated-Trade (accessed on 12 December 2018).
- Elliott, L. ASEAN and environmental governance: Strategies of regionalism in Southeast Asia. Glob. Environ. Polit. 2012, 12, 38–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerard, K. ASEAN, Anti-Politics, and Human Rights, in: Anti-Politics, Depoliticization, and Governance; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2017; pp. 112–133. [Google Scholar]
- Rahbar, E.; Wahid, N.A. Investigation of green marketing tools’ effect on consumers’ purchase behavior. Bus. Strategy Ser. 2011, 12, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hori, S.; Kondo, K.; Nogata, D.; Ben, B. The determinants of household energy-saving behavior: Survey and comparison in five major Asian cities. Energy Policy 2013, 52, 354–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|Forest Resources (1000 ha)||Forest Tenure Reform (Development of CF)||Governance (General)|
|1990||2015||2010||2016||Target Area (Year)||Corruption Perception Index (2017) *||Democracy Index **|
|Primary Forest||Total Forest Area||Primary Forest||Total Forest Area||2006||2017|
|Lao PDR||1593||17,645||1194||18,761||no data||no data||no data||29||2.1||2.37|
|Number of Workshops||National and Subnational Government Offices||Civil Society||Others||Total Number of Participants|
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).