IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v91y2020ics0264837719304831.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Learning through practice? Learning from the REDD+ demonstration project, Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership (KFCP) in Indonesia

Author

Listed:
  • Sanders, Anna J.P.
  • Ford, Rebecca M.
  • Keenan, Rodney J.
  • Larson, Anne M.

Abstract

Despite a growing recognition of the importance of social learning in governing and managing land use, the understanding and practice of learning has received limited attention from researchers. In global environmental programs and projects aimed at supporting sustainable land use in developing countries, learning is often promoted but without explicit learning goals. The focus may be on capacity building and community participation, and on testing policy tools, rather than on collaborative social learning. In this study, we looked behind the rhetoric of learning in the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership (KFCP), a large demonstration project for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) in Indonesia. The novelty of such mechanisms, linked to international forest carbon outcomes, means that learning lessons provides a rationale for REDD+ pilot activities. We used a qualitative approach to examine the nature and type of learning that occurred in the KFCP. While the stated project aims were to support policy experimentation and apply learning, the project design was highly technical, and project decision-making did not explicitly encourage joint problem solving. Despite the project’s shortcomings, we identified that learning did occur by the end of the project in ways that were different to the initial goals. Our findings suggest that flexibility and openness in project design and implementation can enable different local actors to define shared learning agendas in ways that are meaningful for them. Designing and implementing environmental projects, and learning goals within them, should attend to the needs and aspirations of those who will have to live with their long-term consequences. Learning should be integrated into international environmental programs and projects at all levels, including for policy and funding bodies, rather than focusing on local capacity building and similar project ‘benefits’. Interviewees’ eagerness to learn suggests that building approaches to social learning into program design has the potential to yield opportunities for learning beyond REDD+ to other forms of policy experimentation and governance innovations.

Suggested Citation

  • Sanders, Anna J.P. & Ford, Rebecca M. & Keenan, Rodney J. & Larson, Anne M., 2020. "Learning through practice? Learning from the REDD+ demonstration project, Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership (KFCP) in Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:91:y:2020:i:c:s0264837719304831
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104285
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837719304831
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104285?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sage, Daniel & Dainty, Andrew & Brookes, Naomi, 2013. "Thinking the ontological politics of managerial and critical performativities: An examination of project failure," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 282-291.
    2. Sunderlin, William D. & Larson, Anne M. & Duchelle, Amy E. & Resosudarmo, Ida Aju Pradnja & Huynh, Thu Ba & Awono, Abdon & Dokken, Therese, 2014. "How are REDD+ Proponents Addressing Tenure Problems? Evidence from Brazil, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, and Vietnam," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 37-52.
    3. Erik Olbrei & Stephen Howes, 2012. "A Very Real and Practical Contribution? - Lessons from the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership," Development Policy Centre Discussion Papers 1216, Development Policy Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    4. Ebrahim, Alnoor, 2003. "Accountability In Practice: Mechanisms for NGOs," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 813-829, May.
    5. Vivek N. Mathur & Stavros Afionis & Jouni Paavola & Andrew J. Dougill & Lindsay C. Stringer, 2014. "Experiences of host communities with carbon market projects: towards multi-level climate justice," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 42-62, January.
    6. Hoffmann, Matthew J., 2011. "Climate Governance at the Crossroads: Experimenting with a Global Response after Kyoto," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195390087.
    7. Mustalahti, Irmeli & Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy, 2014. "REDD+ and Empowered Deliberative Democracy: Learning from Tanzania," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 199-211.
    8. Ojha, Hemant R. & Ford, Rebecca & Keenan, Rodney J. & Race, Digby & Carias Vega, Dora & Baral, Himlal & Sapkota, Prativa, 2016. "Delocalizing Communities: Changing Forms of Community Engagement in Natural Resources Governance," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 274-290.
    9. Mbatu, Richard S, 2016. "REDD+ research: Reviewing the literature, limitations and ways forward," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 140-152.
    10. Resosudarmo, Ida Aju Pradnja & Atmadja, Stibniati & Ekaputri, Andini Desita & Intarini, Dian Y. & Indriatmoko, Yayan & Astri, Pangestuti, 2014. "Does Tenure Security Lead to REDD+ Project Effectiveness? Reflections from Five Emerging Sites in Indonesia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 68-83.
    11. Sanders, Anna J.P. & Ford, Rebecca M. & Mulyani, Lilis & Prasti H., Rut Dini & Larson, Anne M. & Jagau, Yusurum & Keenan, Rodney J., 2019. "Unrelenting games: Multiple negotiations and landscape transformations in the tropical peatlands of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 196-210.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xiaomin Guo & Chuanglin Fang, 2021. "Integrated Land Use Change Related Carbon Source/Sink Examination in Jiangsu Province," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-18, November.
    2. A. Fleming & S. Agrawal & Dinomika & Y. Fransisca & L. Graham & S. Lestari & D. Mendham & D. O’Connell & B. Paul & M. Po & A. Rawluk & N. Sakuntaladewi & B. Winarno & T. W. Yuwati, 2021. "Reflections on integrated research from community engagement in peatland restoration," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    3. Kate Mattocks, 2021. "Policy experimentation and policy learning in Canadian cultural policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(4), pages 891-909, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yvonne Hargita & Lukas Giessen & Sven Günter, 2020. "Similarities and Differences between International REDD+ and Transnational Deforestation-Free Supply Chain Initiatives—A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-33, January.
    2. Veronesi, Marcella & Reutemann, Tim & Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2015. "Designing REDD+ schemes when forest users are not forest landowners: Evidence from a survey-based experiment in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 46-57.
    3. Gakou-Kakeu, Josiane & Di Gregorio, Monica & Paavola, Jouni & Sonwa, Denis Jean, 2022. "REDD+ policy implementation and institutional interplay: Evidence from three pilot projects in Cameroon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    4. Erik Lilleskov & Kevin McCullough & Kristell Hergoualc’h & Dennis Castillo Torres & Rodney Chimner & Daniel Murdiyarso & Randy Kolka & Laura Bourgeau-Chavez & John Hribljan & Jhon Aguila Pasquel & Cra, 2019. "Is Indonesian peatland loss a cautionary tale for Peru? A two-country comparison of the magnitude and causes of tropical peatland degradation," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 591-623, April.
    5. Sunderlin, William D. & de Sassi, Claudio & Sills, Erin O. & Duchelle, Amy E. & Larson, Anne M. & Resosudarmo, Ida Aju Pradnja & Awono, Abdon & Kweka, Demetrius Leo & Huynh, Thu Ba, 2018. "Creating an appropriate tenure foundation for REDD+: The record to date and prospects for the future," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 376-392.
    6. Jun Harbi & Yukun Cao & Noril Milantara & Gamin & Ade Brian Mustafa & Nathan James Roberts, 2021. "Understanding People−Forest Relationships: A Key Requirement for Appropriate Forest Governance in South Sumatra, Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-22, June.
    7. Naughton-Treves, Lisa & Wendland, Kelly, 2014. "Land Tenure and Tropical Forest Carbon Management," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 1-6.
    8. Tanner, Andrew M. & Johnston, Alison L., 2017. "The Impact of Rural Electric Access on Deforestation Rates," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 174-185.
    9. McLain, Rebecca & Lawry, Steven & Guariguata, Manuel R. & Reed, James, 2021. "Toward a tenure-responsive approach to forest landscape restoration: A proposed tenure diagnostic for assessing restoration opportunities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    10. Mucahid Mustafa Bayrak & Lawal Mohammed Marafa, 2016. "Ten Years of REDD+: A Critical Review of the Impact of REDD+ on Forest-Dependent Communities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-22, July.
    11. Benjamin T. Wood & Lindsay C. Stringer & Andrew J. Dougill & Claire H. Quinn, 2018. "Socially Just Triple-Wins? A Framework for Evaluating the Social Justice Implications of Climate Compatible Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-20, January.
    12. Benjamin T. Wood & Andrew J. Dougill & Lindsay C. Stringer & Claire H. Quinn, 2018. "Implementing Climate-Compatible Development in the Context of Power: Lessons for Encouraging Procedural Justice through Community-Based Projects," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-23, May.
    13. Kongsager, Rico & Corbera, Esteve, 2015. "Linking Mitigation and Adaptation in Carbon Forestry Projects: Evidence from Belize," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 132-146.
    14. Liu, Zhaoyang & Gong, Yazhen & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2018. "How do Payments for Environmental Services Affect Land Tenure? Theory and Evidence From China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 195-213.
    15. Toumbourou, Tessa, 2020. "Using a Delphi approach to identify the most efficacious interventions to improve Indonesia’s forest and land governance," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    16. McCall, Michael K., 2016. "Beyond “Landscape” in REDD+: The Imperative for “Territory”," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 58-72.
    17. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L. & Alló, Maria & Barrio, Melina, 2016. "Ecosystem Services and REDD: Estimating the Benefits of Non-Carbon Services in Worldwide Forests," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 246-261.
    18. Jespersen, Kristjan & Gallemore, Caleb, 2018. "The Institutional Work of Payments for Ecosystem Services: Why the Mundane Should Matter," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 507-519.
    19. Pascal Dey & Chris Steyaert, 2016. "Rethinking the Space of Ethics in Social Entrepreneurship: Power, Subjectivity, and Practices of Freedom," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 133(4), pages 627-641, February.
    20. Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy & Bredahl Jacobsen, Jette & Poudyal, Mahesh & Rasoamanana, Alexandra & Hockley, Neal, 2018. "Estimating welfare impacts where property rights are contested: methodological and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 71-83.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:91:y:2020:i:c:s0264837719304831. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.