- How do the views of different actors participating in REDD+ strategic planning at the sub-national (state) level, taking Quintana Roo as an example, align with the national policy approach to REDD+ as a broad, holistic strategy for sustainable rural development?
- How do the current practices of horizontal and vertical coordination in MLG support procedurally legitimate REDD+ planning to operationalize the envisioned approach? What kind of opportunities and bottlenecks are there, and with what implications for the development and implementation of locally appropriate actions?
2. Case Study: Multilevel Governance for REDD+ in Quintana Roo, Mexico
2.1. Conceptual Framework
- Ownership on the basis of inclusive and representative participation. The inclusion of as many stakeholders as possible in policy formulation, though to varying degrees, is the norm in current development discourse. Parties to the UNFCCC have agreed to follow this principle in the development of REDD+ actions . With increased duration and quality of participation, stakeholders develop an ownership over the negotiated rules and norms and are more likely to accept the costs of implementing them. This ownership is both emotional (attachment to the process and to other involved actors) as well as rational; i.e., there is an expectation that through participation, the actors will be able to access relevant information as well as make their own proposals and defend their own interests in the process. Often, participation is indirect through representatives and spokespersons. It is important that the representatives are considered sincere, legitimate and sufficiently mandated by their principals or constituencies so that the rules, if indeed negotiated by the representatives in participatory processes, are accepted also by the constituencies .
- Social learning and persuasion based on deliberation. This core facet of the theories on deliberative democracy [23,24] assumes that when participants to political processes have the chance to critically, freely and transparently argue for and against different policy proposals, they are more likely to accept the outcome of the negotiation and subsequently comply with it. The outcome is not necessarily a consensus , but social learning may occur as a result of being exposed to new evidence and arguments or simply recognizing that multiple points of view exist, leading the actors to redefine the situation and ultimately contributing to behavioral change . However, the discursive aspects of policy processes and particularly the influence of deliberation may be undermined by entrenched power asymmetries based on differential positions of actors in the relevant formal institutional frameworks as well as resource networks [21,26,27].
2.2. Data Collection and Analysis
|Organizational Type||N Nominated||n Interviewed||Level of Governance|
|Federal government||8||5 (63%)||National, with branches at the state level and operations at the local level|
|State government||5||4 (80%)||State (Yucatán and Campeche state governments considered in Figure 1 as “regional”)|
|Municipal government||4||3 (75%)||Local|
|National NGO||11||8 (73%)||National/regional/state|
|Producer organization||8||4 (50%)||State/local|
|Academic, research||5||1 (20%)||State|
|International NGO||3||3 (100%)||International, with operations at national, regional, and local levels|
|Total||47||26 (55%/76% of the actors named in 90% of nominations made)|
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Conceptualizing REDD+: Means to an End in Holistic Rural Development
“The vision is to achieve changes and REDD+ is one opportunity to strengthen them, but it is not an end in itself.”(International NGO officer, 15 November 2013)
“You open a call, look here guys, here is the menu, you can ask for this: fried eggs, motuleños, whatever…You choose and in one month you need to present these things and in six months the money will arrive. Once the money arrives you need to show me the results. This is an easy monitoring strategy for the government, but it is not exactly what is required.”(Producer organization officer, 29 November 2013)
3.2. Procedural Legitimacy in Horizontal and Vertical Coordination for REDD+
3.2.1. Participation and Representation in the Formal Structures and Networks
“... he did not know he was there (in the CTC), but by default he was the member as the sector president. He did not know it but I explained it to him the other day when I sent the invitation. He said, something like that was mentioned before but I don’t know what I’m going to do there. And he is totally right, I mean, how is it that I’m going to a meeting I’ve never been invited to before and how is my name there?”(CTC president, 2 December 2013)
“I am already annoyed with convening meetings. I arrive there [in the meeting to discuss joint position for the CTC] and they almost do not attend, they are a few or they do not attend. I convene and I declare the meeting void. So I go with what I think I ought to say. So I am already participating as a person, although I represent six organizations. And I don’t think I am the only one that this happens to.”(Sectoral representative, 21 November 2013)
3.2.2. Information Sharing, Deliberation and Influence
“The only participatory body [in REDD+], but with limitations, is the Technical Consultative Council [CTC] which, as its name says, is consultative; that is, the decisions are made elsewhere.”(Producer organization officer, 29 November 2013)
“I would like it to be the Council [CTC], but traditionally and based on my experience, all the councils have been treated as something that you create to ensure that you are informing and listening to opinions, but as regards clear influence… Because as they (state and federal government representatives locally) say, ‘if even we cannot influence this, then (how will) you?’ That is, it all comes from Mexico City, the alignments come from Mexico City, so how to change them? For that it is difficult.”(Director of a producer organization, 5 December 2013)
“Now, the problem is, when somebody is financing you, there are also rights, and it is like… like you are afraid of contradicting the one who is paying, bringing the coffee. You feel like a traitor in a way. They are helping me and I’m telling them they are not giving me enough information.”(Director of a producer organization, 5 December 2013)
Conflicts of Interest
- Global Landscapes Forum. GLF Policy Recommendation 1: Negotiators should apply landscape approach principles to REDD+. Available online: http://www.landscapes.org/glf-policy-recommendation-1-negotiators-apply-landscape-approach-principles-redd/ (accessed on 7 August 2014).
- Pacheco, P.; Aguilar-Støen, M.; Börner, J.; Etter, A.; Putzel, L.; Diaz, M.; del, C.V. Landscape transformation in tropical Latin America: Assessing trends and policy implications for REDD+. Forests 2010, 2, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Noordwijk, M.; Minang, P.A.; Dewi, S.; Hall, J.; Rantala, S. Reducing Emissions from All Land Uses (REALU): The case for a whole landscape approach. ASB Policy Brief 2009, 13, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Kashwan, P.; Holahan, R. Nested governance for effective REDD+: Institutional and political arguments. Int. J. Commons 2014, 8, 554–575. [Google Scholar]
- Visseren-Hamakers, I.; Verkooijen, P. The practice of interaction management: Enhancing synergies among multilateral REDD+ institutions. In Forest and Nature Governance; Arts, B., Behagel, J., Bommel, S., van Koning, J., de Turnhout, E., Eds.; Springer: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 133–149. [Google Scholar]
- Bache, I.; Flinders, M. Multi-Level Governance; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Piattoni, S. Multi-level governance: A historical and conceptual analysis. J. Eur. Integr. 2009, 31, 163–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pahl-Wostl, C. A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2009, 19, 354–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mwangi, E.; Wardell, A. Multi-level governance of forest resources. Int. J. Commons 2012, 6, 79–103. [Google Scholar]
- Peters, B.G.; Pierre, J. Multi-level governance and democracy: A Faustian bargain? In Multi-Level Governance; Bache, I., Flinders, M., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2004; pp. 75–89. [Google Scholar]
- Young, O.R. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Newig, J.; Fritsch, O. Environmental governance: Participatory, multi-level and effective? Environ. Policy Gov. 2009, 19, 197–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brockhaus, M.; Angelsen, A. Seeing REDD+ through 4Is: A political economy framework. In Analysing REDD+: Challenges and Choices; Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Sunderlin, W.D., Verchot, L., Eds.; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Bogor, Indonesia, 2012; pp. 15–30. [Google Scholar]
- Papadopoulos, Y. Problems of democratic accountability in network and multilevel governance. Eur. Law J. 2007, 13, 469–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SEMARNAT. Mexico’s Vision for REDD+: Towards a National Strategy; Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales: Mexico City, Mexico, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- CONAFOR. Estrategia Nacional Para REDD+ (ENAREDD+); Comisión Nacional Forestal: Guadalajara, Mexico, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- CONAFOR. Mexico Emission Reductions Program Idea Note (ER-PIN); Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), Carbon Fund: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- CONAFOR. Modelo de gobernanza intermunicipal REDD+. Available online: http://www.conafor.gob.mx/web/temas-forestales/bycc/acciones-de-preparacion-para-redd/modelo-de-gobernanza-intermunicipal-redd/ (accessed on 27 May 2014).
- Beisheim, M.; Dingwerth, K. Procedural Legitimacy and Private Transnational Governance Are the Good Ones Doing Better; SFB 700: Berlin, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Scharpf, F.W. Legitimacy in the multi-actor European polity. In Organizing Political Institutions. Essays for Johan P. Olsen; Egeberg, M., Lægreid, P., Eds.; Scandinavian University Press: Oslo, Norway, 1999; pp. 261–288. [Google Scholar]
- Kronsell, A.; Bäckstrand, K. Rationalities and Forms of Governance: A Framework for Analysing the Legitimacy of New Modes of Governance. In Environmental Politics and Deliberative Democracy: Examining the Promise of New Modes of Governance; Bäckstrand, K., Khan, J., Kronsell, A., Lovbrand, E., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA, USA, 2010; pp. 28–46. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In Proceedings of the Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Sixteenth Session, Cancun, Mexcio, 29 November–10 December 2010.
- Fischer, F.; Forester, J. The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning; Duke University Press: Durham and London, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Hajer, M.A.; Wagenaar, H. Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Manin, B. On legitimacy and political deliberation. Polit. Theory 1987, 15, 338–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arts, B.; Buizer, M. Forests, discourses, institutions: A discursive-institutional analysis of global forest governance. For. Policy Econ. 2009, 11, 340–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rantala, S.; di Gregorio, M. Multistakeholder environmental governance in action: REDD+ discourse coalitions in Tanzania. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19. Available online: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/80126 (accessed on 15 September 2014).
- Keohane, R.O. Global Governance and Democratic Accountability; Oxford University Press: New York, UK, 2003; pp. 1–35. [Google Scholar]
- Laumann, E.-O.; Marsden, P.-V.; Prensky, D. The boundary specification problem in network analysis. In Research Methods in Social Network Analysis; Freeman, L.C., White, D.R., Romney, A.K., Eds.; Transaction Publishers: New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 1992; pp. 61–709. [Google Scholar]
- Carrington, P.J.; Scott, J.; Wasserman, S. Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Laumann, E.O.; Marsden, P.V.; Galaskiewicz, J. Community-elite influence structures: Extension of a network approach. Am. J. Sociol. 1977, 83, 594–631. [Google Scholar]
- Costenbader, E.; Valente, T.W. The stability of centrality measures when networks are sampled. Soc. Netw. 2003, 25, 283–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandez, R.M.; Gould, R.V. A dilemma of state power: Brokerage and influence in the national health policy domain. Am. J. Sociol. 1994, 99, 1455–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ernstson, H.; Barthel, S.; Andersson, E.; Borgström, S.T. Scale-crossing brokers and network governance of urban ecosystem services: The case of Stockholm. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, 28. [Google Scholar]
- Corbera, E.; Estrada, M.; May, P.; Navarro, G.; Pacheco, P. Rights to land, forests and carbon in REDD+: Insights from Mexico, Brazil and Costa Rica. Forests 2011, 2, 301–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cronkleton, P.; Bray, D.B.; Medina, G. Community forest management and the emergence of multi-scale governance institutions: Lessons for REDD+ development from Mexico, Brazil and Bolivia. Forests 2011, 2, 451–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CONAFOR. Proceso Nacional REDD+: F. Participación. Available online: http://www.conafor.gob.mx/portal/index.php/proceso-nacional-redd/f-participacion (accessed on 7 October 2013).
- SAGARPA. El presupuesto 2014 de SAGARPA se invertirá para impulsar la productividad agroalimentaria. Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación, Mexico City, Mexico. Available online: http://sagarpa.gob.mx/saladeprensa/2012/Paginas/2014B009.aspx (accessed on 2 February 2014).
- Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público. Presupuesto de Egresos de la Federación para el Ejercicio Fiscal 2014. Available online: http://www.shcp.gob.mx/EGRESOS/PEF/Paginas/DocumentosRecientes.aspx (accessed on 2 April 2014).
- Alix-Garcia, J.; McIntosh, C.; Sims, K.R.E.; Welch, J.R. The ecological footprint of poverty alleviation: Evidence from Mexico’s Oportunidades program. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2013, 95, 417–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Busch, C.B.; Vance, C. The diffusion of cattle ranching and deforestation: prospects for a hollow frontier in Mexico’s Yucatán. Land Econ. 2011, 87, 682–698. [Google Scholar]
- Vance, C.; Geoghegan, J. Temporal and spatial modelling of tropical deforestation: A survival analysis linking satellite and household survey data. Agric. Econ. 2002, 27, 317–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klepeis, P.; Vance, C. Neoliberal policy and deforestation in Southeastern Mexico: An assessment of the PROCAMPO Program. Econ. Geogr. 2003, 79, 221–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abizaid, C.; Coomes, O.T. Land use and forest fallowing dynamics in seasonally dry tropical forests of the southern Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico. Land Use Policy 2004, 21, 71–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radel, C.; Schmook, B.; Chowdhury, R.R. Agricultural livelihood transition in the southern Yucatán region: Diverging paths and their accompanying land changes. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2010, 10, 205–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmook, B.; Radel, C. International labor migration from a tropical development frontier: Globalizing households and an incipient forest transition. Hum. Ecol. 2008, 36, 891–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellis, E.A.; Porter-Bolland, L. Is community-based forest management more effective than protected areas? A comparison of land use/land cover change in two neighboring study areas of the Central Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. For. Ecol. Manag. 2008, 256, 1971–1983. [Google Scholar]
- CONAFOR. Apoyos 2013: Lineamientos de Operación para el Programa Especial para la conservación, restauración y el manejo sustentable de los recursos forestales de la Península de Yucatán (PEPY). Available online: http://www.conafor.gob.mx/portal/index.php/tramites-y-servicios/apoyos-2013 (accessed on 28 May 2014).
- Skutsch, M.; Borrego, A.; Morales-Barquero, L.; Paneque-Gálvez, J.; Salinas-Melgoza, M.; Ramirez, M.I.; Perez-Salicrup, D.; Benet, D.; Monroy, S.; Gao, Y. Opportunities, constraints and perceptions of rural communities regarding their potential to contribute to forest landscape transitions under REDD+: Case studies from Mexico. Int. For. Rev. in press.
© 2014 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 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).