Politics of decision-making around REDD+ at the national level

It is believed that having a functional institutional arrangement for REDD+ is seen as one of the desired outcomes during the Readiness stage, as shown in the latest self-assessment report of the Readiness Package by Vietnam Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Develop- ment (MARD 2016). While the necessary institutional arrangement for REDD+ has been in place since 2009 (with the establishment of the National REDD+ Steering Committee and Sub-Technical Working Groups), the politics of decision-making regarding REDD+ at the national level are likely to influence REDD+ outcomes. This can be observed

through how different stakeholders (governmental and non-governmental ones) are in- volved in shaping REDD+-related policies, and more specifically, in negotiating how and to what extent safeguards should be taken into consideration in policy and in practice.

As shown in Figure 1, only the National REDD+ Steering Committee (with ad- ministrative support from Vietnam REDD+ Office (VRO)) can serve as the policy-mak- ing body. The National REDD+ Network by nature is more inclusive, but members in the network can only participate in management and coordination. This is where conflicts of interest arise, as feedback from actors/stakeholders involved in National REDD+ Net- work about gender and other social safeguards might not be translated into existing poli- cies. My observations from policy fora that have taken place at the national level help to identify what sorts of problems emerge between various stakeholders of REDD+. For example, during one of the first meetings of the Sub-Technical Working Groups on Safe- guards which I attended in March 2015, the representative from an international research and advocacy organisation on forestry issues, asked VRO to explain in detail the process of collecting feedback from non-government actors on the Safeguards Roadmap in 2014. They received the response that VRO held a meeting on 27th March 2014 to ask for feedback, and also emailed participants. Therefore, VNFOREST (the decision-making body of the forestry sectors) had to ratify the document to meet the timeframe. In the following meeting in September 2015 to discuss the forming of REDD+ core groups to support National REDD+ Steering Committee and VRO in policy-making, the same questions were asked. Various participants, mostly representatives from NGOs, posed the most crucial questions. Firstly, they wanted to know which institutions would be in charge of how feedback was received, integrated and translated into outputs for discussions dur- ing the process of implementing REDD+ at national and local levels. Secondly, how was this information relayed to people at higher levels of governance. However, no adequate response from VRO representatives was offered at that meeting.

The frustration of NGO practitioners with government bodies could also be ob- served in my subsequent interviews with them. According to one NGO representative, mechanisms to address and integrate feedback from NGO to national and sub-national REDD+ policy texts are far from clear and transparent. As he said:

Previously we participated in the meetings very frequently ... After the ratifica- tion of current REDD+ documents, we could see that our feedback was not re- flected in those, and we were a bit disappointed with that … We do not mind contributing our ideas, but the crucial thing is whether these discussions are go-

ing anywhere, or [whether the government] just does this to meet the require- ment regarding stakeholders’ participation, and the final decision still lies within VNFOREST.

Having our feedback recorded in the meeting’s minutes might not mean anything, if the results of discussion [between the government and NGOs] are not integrated into actual policies. For example, now we are adjusting NRAP and SIS of Vietnam, I wonder if the results of discussion during the last meeting will be in there. (Interview with NGO4, 2016)

Another NGO representative, meanwhile, further explained what an effective feedback mechanism might look like to mobilise civil society’s participation. According to her, stakeholders would be more active if there was a transparent mechanism for feedback in which the government had to be accountable. At the moment, the sub-technical working groups, for her, are more like seminars or workshops, not real working groups. This is because feedback from stakeholders is collected and recorded within these government- led meetings, but might not be addressed or taken into consideration.

Government officers from VRO, however, seemed to have different views and procedures in handling feedback from these meetings. While they did not manage to re- spond adequately to NGO practitioners during the meetings of Sub-Technical Working Group on Safeguards, in another meeting of Sub-Technical Working Group on Govern- ance in April 2015, VRO made a short presentation about the function of REDD+ net- works and sub-technical working groups as well as the role of VRO. The network is to remain open and serve as a platform to share information and feedback for managers (MARD Management Board and donors). VRO’s stated objective is to collect infor- mation from sub-technical working group meetings and report to managers through Na- tional REDD+ Steering Committee meetings.

My interview with a governmental officer revealed their challenges as a ‘broker’ between non-state agencies and policy-making agencies such as VNFOREST and MARD. According to her, the first challenge comes from the nature of the sub-technical working groups being too open and diverse. In her view, since the participants are quite diverse and not all of them are knowledgeable on technical aspects of REDD+, these groups merely serve as a platform to share information. Therefore, VRO plans to form a core group to discuss technical issues before bringing them to the sub-technical working group. Another challenge lies within the institutional function of VRO and mechanisms of reporting and supporting between VRO and the higher level of governance. VRO is in charge of collecting, processing and reporting feedback to VNFOREST, but everything must come under a ‘package’, which means that they can only report to their Management Board after they finish discussing with other stakeholders and synthesise their feedback.

In terms of safeguards and Safeguards Information System (SIS), VRO aims to build up the framework for SIS, but they need to go through necessary steps from identifying info needed, assessing current forms of reporting safeguards to proposing the tentative frame- work for SIS. As such, for VRO, it is the timeframe that matters most in feedback mech- anisms. Also, VRO find it challenging, as a managing and coordinating body, to select the feedback to be integrated in policies as well as to achieve a balance amidst diverse ideas, feedback and criticisms from stakeholders:

I am sure you know this [reporting to the higher level of governance] is a sen- sitive issue, and the important thing is who should report and how we should report. In other words, it’s not about what we have done, but how we did it so our ‘bosses’ could approve … I do not know which REDD+ documents other NGO people have mentioned about when they said their feedback was not re- flected. We recorded all ideas contributed by the participants. You might know that it’s very difficult to deal with safeguards, because any stakeholders could participate and there are diverse and multi-dimensional opinions concerning safeguards. For us, the information receiver, we need to filter the information. For example, some NGOs are very interested in the issue of gender, ethnic mi- norities, rights, customary laws, indigenous knowledge, etc. We know that. But, when it comes to national policies, we have to be balanced. That is why we are willing to listen to their opinions. However, it is difficult for us to integrate these issues at the national level.

(Interview with GO2, 2016)

The politics of decision-making in REDD+ with the dominance of state actors and the focus on cooperation between state and non-state actors in implementation rather than in policy formation have been discussed in previous studies. For example, Huynh and Kee- nan (2017: 4-5) point out that ‘Vietnam’s political decision-making process is often de- scribed as either consensus-based or simply confusing and inexplicable’ and this was conditioned by ‘the long history of ‘democratic centralism’ under Marxist-Leninist phi- losophy’. Due to this ‘decision-making culture,’ it is always challenging for non-state actors to influence policies, especially concerning politically sensitive issues such as eth- nic minorities, natural resources and indigenous rights. REDD+ safeguards inevitably cut across all politically sensitive issues and therefore, decision-making regarding REDD+ is still very much under the surveillance of the state. It might be argued that there have been certain positive signs, as REDD+ and REDD+-related policy fora (meetings of sub-tech- nical workings groups, for example) have facilitated a dialogue between state and non- state actors, especially NGO practitioners, on politically sensitive issues under the um- brella of ‘REDD+ safeguards’.

Most NGO practitioners, however, expressed pessimism on the potential influ- ence of non-state actors in the process. This situation is not specific to REDD+. In Vi- etnam, giving feedback to the government simply does not exist. Often, NGO practition- ers only give an opinion if they are specifically asked because the role of NGOs is to support the government to implement development projects, not to challenge or criticise it (Pham et al. 2014). In my case study, NGOs’ reflection on their role and voice in REDD+ shows that although many NGOs working on environment and development in Vietnam have strong motivations and are able to mobilise the right discourses and re- sources to engage in the REDD+ process, they struggle to influence policy making. On the other hand, it shows that the state seeks to demonstrate their efforts in bringing civil society and local communities to the table and allowing them to participate. However, whether this participation is ‘full and effective’ is still questionable.