Co-Operation or Co-Optation? NGOs’ Roles in Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative

Abstract

This paper investigates non-governmental organisation (NGO) involvement in policy processes related to Norway's International Climate and Forest Initiative (NICFI) comparing four countries: Norway, Brazil, Indonesia, and Tanzania. Based on documents and interviews, NGO involvement is mapped using a conceptual framework to categorise and compare different roles and modes of engagement. NGOs have co-operated with government in policy design and implementation, albeit to varying degrees, in all four countries, but expressed relatively little public criticism. Funding seems to have an influence on NGOs' choices regarding whether, what, when, and how to criticise. However, limited public criticism does not necessarily mean that the NGOs are co-opted. They are reflexive regarding their possible operating space, and act strategically and pragmatically to pursue their goals in an entrepreneurial manner. The interests of NGOs and NICFI are to a large extent congruent. Instead of publicly criticising a global initiative that they largely support, and thus put the initiative as a whole at risk, NGOs may use other, more informal, channels to voice points of disagreement. While NGOs do indeed run the risk of being co-opted, their opportunity to resist this fate is probably greater in this instance than is usually the case because NICFI are so reliant on their services.

Clashing interpretations of REDD+ “results” in the Amazon Fund

“…In this context, the Brazilian Amazon Fund is currently one of the largest and most experienced RBF instruments worldwide, with over a decade of operational activity, up to USD 2 billion in donation pledges, and an approved disbursement of over USD 707 million for the support of 100 projects (BNDES 2018). At the same time, scholars are slowly beginning to observe the emergence of critiques on the Amazon Fund's effectiveness with respect to reducing deforestation (Angelsen 2017;Hermansen et al 2017).…”

“…This alignment involves the balancing of appropriate compensation (i.e., recipient risks), performance expectations (i.e., investor risks), and ownership of the results obtained (i.e., host vs donor country) (Müller et al 2013;Zadek et al 2010). In this respect, the establishment of the Amazon Fund in 2008 built on a desire of the Brazilian government to receive non-offset-based compensation for past deforestation reductions (Carvalho 2012) that coincided with the decision of the Norwegian government to increase its international climate mitigation efforts and thus becoming a leading player at the climate negotiations (Hermansen 2015;Hermansen et al 2017). Some scholars, however, subject the RBF structure of the Amazon Fund to critical scrutiny.…”

“…Some scholars, however, subject the RBF structure of the Amazon Fund to critical scrutiny. Angelsen (2017, p. 258), for example, questions whether the ex-post agreements of the Amazon Fund are Bresults-based in practice because the marginal incentives [for further deforestation reductions] are not in place.^Other scholars argued that stakeholder interests may not be fully aligned yet, but the conflicts and contradictions are internally negotiated with relevant stakeholders rather than publicly criticized in the media (Hermansen et al 2017).…”

REDD+ Crossroads Post Paris: Politics, Lessons and Interplays

“…Hermansen et al [1] use qualitative process-tracing to analyse how NGOs in Norway, Brazil, Indonesia, and Tanzania have cooperated with the Norwegian and their own country governments to facilitate the early start of REDD+ policy design and implementation. The authors argue that cooperation should be distinguished from co-optation to the extent that NGOs remain critical of certain aspects of REDD+ and have found forums and ways to exert an influence on and to change NICFI's operating procedures.…”

“…Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, conserving and enhancing forest carbon stocks, and sustainably managing forests (REDD+), has become a reference framework for national forest governance across many tropical and subtropical forest countries [1,2] These countries have used funds from multilateral and bilateral aid platforms to re-organise forest management and conservation policy around the idea of mitigating climate change, including the development of national REDD+ strategies and both carbon accounting and benefit-sharing protocols [3]. In parallel, international conservation organizations have mobilised REDD+ principles and assumptions to promote small-scale pilot activities across the tropics, in order to capture the economic value of any resulting land-use emission reductions, mostly and rather limitedly through voluntary carbon markets [4].…”