Climate policy integration in the land use sector: Mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development linkages

Climate

policy

integration

in

the

land

use

sector:

Mitigation,

adaptation

and

sustainable

development

linkages

Monica

Di

Gregorio

*

,

Dodik

Ridho

Nurrochmat

,

Jouni

Paavola

,

Intan

Maya

Sari

,

Leandra

Fatorelli

,

Emilia

Pramova

,

Bruno

Locatelli

,

Maria

Brockhaus

,

Sonya

Dyah

Kusumadewi

a

SustainabilityResearchInstitute,UniversityofLeeds,UK b

CenterforInternationalForestryResearch,Indonesia c_{BogorAgriculturalUniversity,Indonesia}

d_{CentredeCoopérationInternationaleenRechercheAgronomiquepourleDéveloppement(CIRAD),France}

ARTICLE INFO

Articlehistory:

Received4September2016

Receivedinrevisedform10November2016 Accepted10November2016

Availableonline17November2016

Keywords: Mitigation Adaptation

Climatepolicyintegration Forest

Agriculture Indonesia

ABSTRACT

Thisarticlere-conceptualizesClimatePolicyIntegration(CPI)inthelandusesectortohighlighttheneed toassessthelevelofintegrationofmitigationandadaptationobjectivesandpoliciestominimize trade-offsandtoexploitsynergies.ItsuggeststhateffectiveCPIinthelandusesectorrequiresi)internal climatepolicycoherencebetweenmitigationandadaptationobjectivesandpolicies;ii)externalclimate policycoherencebetweenclimatechangeanddevelopmentobjectives;iii)verticalpolicyintegrationto mainstreamclimatechangeintosectoralpoliciesand;iv)horizontalpolicyintegrationbyoverarching governancestructuresforcross-sectoralcoordination.ThisframeworkisusedtoexamineCPIintheland usesectorofIndonesia.Thefindingsindicatethatadaptationactorsandpoliciesarethemainadvocates ofinternalpolicycoherence.Externalpolicycoherencebetweenmitigationanddevelopmentplanningis calledfor,butremainstobeoperationalized.Bureaucraticpoliticshasinturnunderminedverticaland horizontalpolicyintegration.UnderthesecircumstancesitisunlikelythattheIndonesianbureaucracy candeliverstrongcoordinatedactionaddressingclimatechangeinthelandusesector,unlesssectoral ministriesinternalizeastrongmandateoninternalandexternalclimatepolicycoherenceandfindways tocoordinatepolicyactioneffectively.

ã2016TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1.Introduction

The5thAssessmentReportoftheIntergovernmentalPanelon ClimateChangecallsforaformofdevelopmentthat‘combine[s] adaptation and mitigation to realize the goal of sustainable development’(Dentonetal.,2014)).Themainjustificationforthis integratedapproachtoclimatechangeadaptationandmitigation isthatclimateresilience,ortheabilityofsocio-ecologicalsystems torecoverfromclimatechangeimpacts,andconsequentlytoadapt toclimatechange,islinkedtowhetherwealsoachieveclimate changemitigation(Newetal.,2011).Combiningthetwoclimate policyobjectivesrequiresexploitationofsynergies,minimization oftrade-offsanddevelopmentof institutionallinkagesbetween adaptationandmitigation(SwartandRaes,2007).

Somewhat surprisingly, the literature on climate policy integration (CPI) hasrarely examined theinteractions between climatechangeadaptationandmitigationindepth.Ithasinstead typically discussed mainstreaming climate change: integrating

eitherclimatechangemitigationorclimatechangeadaptationwith

sectoralpolicies(AdelleandRussel,2013).CPIstudiesdrawheavily onenvironmentalpolicyintegration(EPI)literatureandhighlight theimportanceofaddressingtrade-offsbetweenclimatechange and sectoral policy objectives, indicate that mainstreaming is criticaltosupportsustainability,highlightthedistinctnatureof timing of mitigation and adaptation, and the lack of linkages between the two climate change objectives in certain sectors (JordanandLenschow,2010;Kleinetal.,2005;KokanddeConinck, 2007;Wilbanksetal.,2007).Thelinkagesbetweenmitigationand adaptationaremoreoftenconsideredinstudiesbyclimatechange andinternationaldevelopmentscholars.Thesestudiesfindthatin the land use sector integrated approaches to mitigation and adaptationcanhelptoreduceriskofimpactdamages,canhelp

* Correspondingauthorat:SustainabilityResearchInstitute,SchoolofEarthand Environment,UniversityofLeeds,LS29JT,Leeds,UnitedKingdom.

E-mailaddress:m.digregorio@leeds.ac.uk(M.DiGregorio).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.11.004

1462-9011/ã2016TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Environmental

Science

&

Policy

local people to address trade-offs and exploit synergies in agricultureand forestry and reduce threats tobiodiversity and foodsecurity(Ravindranath,2007;Verchotetal.,2007;Yoheand Strzepek, 2007). The major constraints to such integrated approaches are the gaps in knowledge about trade-offs and synergiesatthelocallevelandbetween localandglobalscales (Jonesetal.,2007;Locatellietal.,2015).

Thispaperdevelopsanewconceptualframeworkforanalyzing CPIthatincorporatesclimatechangemitigationwithadaptation aimsasopposedtofocusingonlyonmainstreamingmitigationor

adaptationintodevelopmentpolicies.Thisredefinestheconcepts ofinternalandexternalCPItoconsidertheinteractionsbetween mitigationandadaptation.Theframeworkisthenusedtoexamine CPIintheIndonesianlandusesector,toanalyzetheevolutionof theclimatechangepolicyarchitecture,andtoexplorehowclimate change,landuseand developmentpoliciesaddressinteractions betweenthesemultiplepolicyobjectives.

2.Frameworkforintegratingmitigationwithadaptationin climatepolicy

ThissectionoutlinestherevisedanalyticalframeworkforCPI thatincludestheintegrationofmitigationwithadaptationpolicy objectives. The framework builds on the concepts of policy coherence among multiple policy objectives and vertical and horizontaldimensionsofpolicyintegration(LaffertyandHovden, 2003; Persson, 2007). Yet, in the literature there is little consistency in the use of terms ‘policy coherence’ and ‘policy integration’.Theirmeaninghasbeeninterpreteddifferentlyand theyaresometimesusedinterchangeably(AdelleandRussel,2013; denHertogandStroß,2013;Nunanetal.,2012;RusselandJordan, 2010; Scobie, 2016). For analytical purposes we follow Nilsson etal.’s(2012)suggestiontouse‘policycoherence’torefertopolicy outputs and outcomes, or the consistency of multiple policy objectives and associated implementation arrangements, and

‘policy integration’ to refer to the integration of governance arrangements(administrativeandorganizationalstructures)and policy making processes. Consequently, we define CPI as the integration of multiple policy objectives, governance arrange-mentsandpolicyprocessesrelatedtoclimatechangemitigation, adaptationandotherpolicydomains.Wediscussbelowthethree keybuildingblocksoftheanalyticalframeworkinmoredetail.

2.1.Integratingmitigationandadaptationobjectives

UnlikeotherdefinitionsofCPI(AdelleandRussel,2013;Kokand deConinck, 2007), ours explicitlyrefers tointegrating thetwo climatechangeobjectivesofmitigationandadaptation.Intheland usesectortherearemanydirect,indirect,positiveand negative linkagesbetweenmitigationandadaptation(Locatellietal.,2015). Forexample,adaptationstrategiessuchassoilconservationcan help sequester carbon (Maraseni et al., 2012). Yet, nitrogen fertilizationand energy-intensiveirrigationcanincrease carbon

emissions(Moser,2012).Similarly,carbon marketrevenuescan contributetoadaptationthroughdiversificationoflivelihoodsand improved resiliencetoclimatic shocks(Campbell,2009).Other mitigation measures, such as fast growing tree monocultures aimedatmaximizingcarbonsequestrationmayhinderadaptation (Ravindranath,2007).Theexistenceoftheselinkagesmeansthatit can be advantageous to integrate the two climate change objectives: doing so when devising climate change policies in thelandusesectorcanavoidincoherenceinpolicydesignandlead tomoreeffectiveoutcomes.

Positive interactions generate co-benefits when a policy or action intendedtoachieve improvedadaptation(ormitigation) outcomesalsohaveapositiveimpactonmitigation(or adapta-tion).Anapproachisintegratedifapolicyoractionisintended fromtheoutsettocontributetobothoutcomessimultaneouslyto achievesynergiesbetweenthem.Butmitigationandadaptation co-benefitscanalsooriginatefromnon-climatepolicyobjectives andactionsandviceversa.Theseinteractionsarethemostrelevant onesfor mainstreamingclimatechange objectives intosectoral policies.Negativeimpactsofmitigationoradaptationpolicieson one another and of non-climate policy objectives on either mitigation or adaptation are instances of trade-offs (Locatelli etal.,2015)(Table1).Thisisnottosaythatintegratedapproaches require the merger of mitigation and adaptation institutions, policiesoractions.Theydo,however,requiretheconsiderationof bothobjectivessimultaneouslyinordertoexploitsynergiesand minimizetrade-offs(SwartandRaes,2007).

2.2.Internalandexternalclimatepolicycoherence

Theinteractionsbetweenmitigationandadaptationconstitute the second building block of the analytical framework: the distinction betweentwo differentdimensions of climatepolicy coherence. The CPI literaturerefers to policycoherence as the consistencyofclimatechangeandnon-climatepolicyobjectives, also referred to as mainstreaming climate change (Adelle and Russel,2013).Alongsimilarlines,theEPIliteraturedistinguishes betweeninternal policycoherence, which referstointeractions between policy objectives within a single policy domain, and externalpolicycoherence,which referstointeractionsbetween differentpolicydomains(Nilssonetal.,2012).However,theCPI andEPIliteraturesdonotexplicitlyconsidercoherencebetween mitigationandadaptationobjectives.

Werefertointernalclimatechangepolicycoherenceascoherence betweenclimatechangemitigationandadaptation,independently from whether it happens within or acrosspolicy domains (cf.

Nilssonetal.,2012).Inotherwords,internalclimatechangepolicy coherencereferstomutuallybeneficialpractices(synergiesand co-benefits)and thereductionof negativeinteractions(trade-offs) betweenmitigationANDadaptation.Thiskindof climatepolicy coherence has seldom been investigated in depth in the CPI literature.Conversely,we refertoexternalclimate changepolicy

coherenceaspositiveinteractionssupportingmutuallybeneficial

Table1

Typesofinteractionsbetweenadaptation,mitigationandnon-climateobjectivesandactions.

Generalcategories Interactioncategories Label

Co-benefits/trade-offs Adaptationwithmitigationco-benefits/trade-offs A!+M;A!M Adaptationwithotherco-benefits/trade-offs A!+O;A!O Mitigationwithadaptationco-benefits/trade-offs M!+A;M!A Mitigationwithotherco-benefits/trade-offs M!+O;M!O Non-climateactionwithco-benefits/trade-offsforadaptation O!+A;O!A Non-climateactionwithco-benefits/trade-offsformitigation O!+M;O!M Integratedapproach Integratedapproach(simultaneousconsiderationofAandMobjectives) A&M!+A+M

practices (synergies)and thereduction of negativeinteractions (trade-offs)betweenclimatechangeaims(mitigationOR adapta-tion)ANDnon-climatepolicyobjectives.Thisdimensionofpolicy coherence refers to the most commonly analysed form of mainstreaming climate change efforts into sectoral or broader developmentpolicies(Table2).

2.3.VerticalandhorizontalCPI

The third building block refers to vertical and horizontal dimensionsofpolicyintegration(LaffertyandHovden,2003).They refer todistinctaspects of theadministrative structure climate policyandhavebeenunderstooddifferentlybydifferentEPIand CPI scholars (Jordan and Lenschow, 2010; Nunan et al., 2012). Therefore, we highlight that we follow Lafferty and Hovden’s (2003,p.13)definitionwhenreferring totheterm‘vertical’ina

‘functionalsense’tothemandates,rolesandinteractionswithin theresponsibilityofonesectoralministerialauthorityorwithin onepolicydomainsuchasforestryorclimatechange.Incontrast, other scholars often refer to ‘vertical’ integration as ‘vertical constitutionaldivisionofpower’(LaffertyandHovden,2003,p.14), forexamplebetweenregional,nationalandsub-national authori-ties.For us,verticalCPIreferstotheextent towhich aspecific sectororpolicydomainhasadoptedproceduresthatfacilitatethe adoptionandimplementationofclimatechangeobjectives(Adelle andRussel,2013).EvidenceofeffectiveverticalCPIincludesthe formulationandimplementationofsectoralclimatechangeplans, which requires wellspecified targets, timetablesand reporting requirements(LaffertyandHovden,2003).

Horizontalpolicyintegrationreferstotheinstitutional inter-actionsacrossdistinctsectors, or‘theextenttowhicha central authorityhasdevelopedacomprehensivecross-sectoralstrategy’

(LaffertyandHovden,2003,p.14).Evidenceofeffectivehorizontal policy integration includes, an authoritative long-term climate change policy with timetables and targets, the presence of a climatechangespecificauthoritymandatedtosupervise, coordi-nateandimplement climatechangepolicy,therequirementfor sectoralministries toreportto a central authority,and a clear indicationofsectoralresponsibilityforoverarchinggoals(Lafferty and Hovden,2003).Importantly,becauseenvironmental bodies withcoordinationroles,suchasenvironmentalministries,rarely have the authority to impose decisions on sectoral ministries, effective horizontal integration also requires the presence of a centralauthoritywiththemandatetooverseeandmonitorpolicy integration processes.This mightoften berequireddespite the presence of a dedicated inter-ministerial body that undertakes cross-levelcoordination(JacobandVolkery,2004)(Table2).

Vertical CPI should be effective when the relevant sectoral ministrieshaveastrongclimatechangemandate,haveincentives to internalize it, and have powerful climate change units or

departments.However,thisisrarelythecasesothateffectiveness also depends on the level of political will in these ministries (JordanandLenschow,2010).Intheabsenceoftheseconditions, verticalintegrationalsorequiresanoverarchingauthoritysuchasa non-sectoral body or agency with governmental mandate to enforce a top-down form of government-led policyintegration withministriesreportingback(Nunanetal.,2012).Thus,vertical integration isnotjust aboutthedevolutionofclimatepolicyto sectoralministries,but includesthepresenceof ahigh-ranking institutional mandate and corresponding enforcement mecha-nisms. While devolving responsibility about CPI to sectoral ministries can increase a sense of ‘ownership’ and enhance legitimacy,itcanreinforcefragmentationandsectoralisation,thus weakeninghorizontalCPI(AdelleandRussel,2013).

Mountingevidencesuggeststhatbothdimensionsofvertical andhorizontalpolicyintegrationareneededforeffectiveEPI,as well as aninstitutional mandate for a higherauthority (parlia-mentary or governmental) providing management, monitoring and reporting requirements, and a coordinating body that facilitates joint management between institutions (Jacob and Volkery,2004;JänickeandJörgens,2006;Nunanetal.,2012).In addition,effectivenessrequiresthelegitimacyorthepolitical acceptabilityofthepolicyarchitectureintheeyesofpowerful policy actors (Franck, 1990). CPI processes often entail the redefinition of hierarchiesand mandates, which are subject to politicalresistancefromintereststhatfeeltheymightloseout.As such,CPI isdeterminednotjustbyitspolicydesign,but bythe existingpoliticalconstellationofpower(JacobandVolkery,2004).

3.Methods

We appliedtheanalytical framework toCPI inthe landuse sector of Indonesia. The land use sector is central for climate change mitigation in Indonesia as it accounts for sixty-three percentofthecountry’semissions(Hosonumaetal.,2012).Atthe sametime,thecountryisextremelyvulnerabletotheimpactsof climatechange.Asanarchipelagopronetonaturalhazardsand withalargepopulationdependingonsmall-scaleagriculture,itis at anincreasedthreatfromsealevelriseand extremeweather events.Forexample,ElNiñoeventsin1997,2003,2006and2015 causeddroughtswhichreducedtheabilityofhouseholdstomeet theirfoodrequirementsandcontributedtoextensiveforestfires (Boer and Perdinan, 2008; Siegert et al., 2001). Given the importance of both climate change objectives in the land use sector, taking intoaccount theinteractions betweenmitigation and adaptationbecomescrucial toensureclimatepolicy coher-ence.

ToinvestigateCPIinIndonesiaweexploredthetwodimensions of policy coherence and policy integration. Starting from the broaderfeaturesofpolicyintegration,weanalyzedtheevolution

Table2

FourdimensionsofClimatePolicyIntegration(CPI).

Administrative&OrganizationalStructures&Processes

VerticalCPI HorizontalCPI

Policy Coherence

InternalClimate ChangePolicy Coherence

(IntegratingMandA policyobjectives)(1)

IntegratingclimatechangemitigationWITHadaptationprocesses/ objectivesacrossadministrativeresponsibilitieswithinonesectoral domain

Examples:IntegratingMANDAintheforestrysector

IntegratingclimatechangemitigationWITH adaptationprocesses/objectivesacrosssectoral domains

Examples:IntegratingMANDAacrosstheforestryand agriculturalsectors

ExternalClimate ChangePolicy Coherence

(MainstreamingMorA intosectoralpolicies)(2)

MainstreamingmitigationORadaptationacrossadministrative responsibilitieswithinonesectoraldomain

Examples:MainstreamingMORAintheforestrysector

MainstreamingmitigationORadaptationacross multiplesectoraldomains

Examples:MainstreamingAORMacrosstheforestry andagriculturalsectors

and effectiveness of the vertical and horizontal dimensions of policy integration and assessed whether they facilitate joint approaches to climate change mitigation and adaptation. We focused primarily on the administrative dimension of formal institutional processes and investigated the policy architecture encompassingthekey policy actorswitha mandate related to climatechange in the land use sector, and related multi-actor institutionssetinplacetoformulateandmanageclimatechange policies. Existing literature, of_ficial policy documents and 30 interviewsundertakenin2014andearly2015withnationaland internationalpolicyactorsprovidedthedataforthisanalysis.The interview material was particularly useful to understand key featuresoftheclimatechangepolicyprocesses(Section4.1)and wasusedtotriangulateandinterprettheresultsfromthepolicy documentanalysis(Section4.2).

Wethenassessedpolicycoherenceonthebasisofthedetailed contentanalysisof25majorclimatechangeandlanduserelated policydocuments(seeAppendixA).Theyincludedkeynational level laws, regulations, strategies and plans led by national governmentalinstitutionswitharegulatorymandatestodevise strategies or plans in the following sectors: climate change, forestry,agriculture,environmentandbiodiversityand develop-mentpolicies.Theanalysissoughttoidentifyinstancesofinternal andexternalclimatepolicycoherence.Weidentified,analyzedand coded all text passages that discussed positive and negative interactions between mitigation, adaptation and non-climate policyobjectives. Weused a directedcoding approach withan initiallistofcategoriesbasedonaliteraturereviewonsynergies, andweaddednewcategoriesastheyarosefromthedocuments (Weber,1990).1

Werefertothecontentandfrequency(countsofmentions)of text passages discussing positive and negative interactions betweenmitigationandadaptationtoassesstheinternalpolicy

coherenceinthepolicydocuments.Wealsoidentifiedthesectors andpolicydomainsreferredtointhetext,andwerefertothetext analysisofthesepassagesaswellasthefrequenciesofmentionsof sectors to assess the level of concern with external policy coherence.The mainsectors identified areagriculture,forestry, energy, environment and biodiversity, disaster management, gender,governance,health,infrastructure,livelihoods,sustainable development,tourism,andwater.

4.EvidencefromIndonesia

ThenextsectionsreporttheresultsoftheanalysisofCPIalong thefourdimensionsoftheanalyticalframework.Wefirstreporton theverticalandhorizontaldimensionsandhowtheyhaveevolved overtime.Next,wepresenttheresultsoftheanalysisofinternal and externalclimatepolicycoherence basedontheanalysisof policydocuments.

4.1.CPI:fromlimitedlegitimacytofragmentation

FromthelaunchoftheNationalActionPlanAddressingClimate Changein2007to2014,theIndonesianclimatepolicyarchitecture developed important features of vertical and horizontal policy integration.TheNationalCouncilonClimateChange(DNPI)was formedin2008asaninter-ministerialbodytaskedwithhorizontal policyintegration functions.It hadan exclusiveclimatechange mandate and operated under the central leadership of the President of Indonesia. Yet, its mandate also included the facilitation of vertical integration of mitigation and adaptation targetsintosectoralandnationaldevelopmentpolicies (Presiden-tialDecree46/2008).Itfeaturedsevenworkinggroupsincluding oneonmitigation,oneonadaptationandoneonlanduse,landuse change and forestry (LULUCF) with multi-actor and multi-sectoralrepresentationofstateandnon-stateactors(Fig.1).

FollowingthepledgeofthePresidentofIndonesiain2009to reduce carbon emissions by 26% from the business-as-usual baseline by 2020, and up to41% withinternational support,a

Fig.1.ClimateChangePolicyArchitectureintheLandUseSector,2007–2014. *:BMKGistheIndonesianAgencyforMeteorology,ClimatologyandGeophysics.

1

parallelverticaland horizontalgovernancestructurewas estab-lishedspecificallyforclimatechangemitigationinthelanduse sector.The2011LetterofIntentbetweenNorwayamajorREDD+ funder and Indonesia required the establishment of an

‘independent’REDD+ Agency(Governmentof Norway, 2011).A precursorofthisagency,theREDD+TaskForce,wasmandatedto developtheNationalREDD+Strategy(Purnomoetal.,2013).The TaskForceoperatedasaunitunderthePresident'sDeliveryUnit for Development Monitoring and Oversight, known as UKP4. Establishedin2009theUKP4reporteddirectlytothePresidentof Indonesia and had the mandate to monitor and advise the Presidentontheperformance of thecabinet.Through theTask Force,UKP4supervisedtheworkofministriesinrelationtovertical integration of climate change mitigation objectives for REDD+ (personal communication, head of UKP4). The Task Force also contributed to horizontal integration through the 10 REDD+ workinggroupswheredifferentgovernmentdepartmentsandcivil society wererepresented (Fig.1). Furtherclimatechangeunits wereestablishedinmajorgeneralandlanduserelatedministries. Onpapersuchagovernancestructurewithclearclimatechange mandates,reportingmechanismsandoversightstructures ensur-ingbothverticalandhorizontaldimensionscouldbeexpectedto performeffectivelyinmainstreamingclimatechangemitigationin thelandusesector.

However,amajorweaknessofhorizontalpolicyintegrationis theresistanceitcantriggerfromsectoraldepartmentsreluctantto cede competencies, which can lead to implementation deficit (Collier,2002;JacobandVolkery,2004).TheDNPIandtheREDD+ Agencydidnotearnlegitimacyintheeyesofkeydepartmentssuch astheMinistryofForestry,theMinistryofEnvironmentandthe Ministryof NationalDevelopmentPlanning,whofelt disenfran-chised from climate policy decisions (Luttrell et al., 2014;

McGregoretal.,2015).Anumberofinformantsfromkeyministries expressed such viewsduring the interviews. A complementary explanation is the mismatch between global and national governance regimes, which has led to a form of conflicting fragmentation (Giessen, 2013; Nurrochmat et al., 2014). The fragmentation originates from a typical problem of interplay betweengovernancelevelswhereglobalinterests—theNorway LetterofIntent—dictatedapolicyarchitecturethatincludedan

‘independent’rule-makinginstitutionnotreflectingtheinterests of ministerial level policy actors, weakening legitimacy and compliancewithrules.

ThePresidentialelectionin2014ledtochangesintheclimate policyarchitecture.ThenewPresident,JokoWidodo,dismantled theUKP4,theDNPIandtheREDD+Agency.Somefunctionsofthe latter two were incorporatedin the newly mergedMinistry of EnvironmentandForestry(MoEF)undertheDirectorateGeneralof Climate Change Oversight (Widiaryanto, 2015).The MoEF also establishedaSteeringCommitteeonClimateChangewhereeleven governmentdepartments and somenon-state actorsare repre-sented. Policy formulation on climate change adaptation has changedtoo.WiththedismantlingoftheDNPI,theMinistryfor National Development Planning (BAPPENAS) appropriated the adaptation agenda. BAPPENAS released the Strategy for Main-streamingAdaptationintoNationalDevelopmentPlanningin2012 and theNationalAction Planfor ClimateChange Adaptation in 2014. Horizontal integration became led by the MoEF and its SteeringCommitteeandbyBAPPENASanditsNational Coordina-tionTeam(Fig.2).Verticalintegrationwassolelyinthehandsof sectoralministries.

The2014changestotheclimatepolicyarchitectureimproved itslegitimacyintheeyesofpowerfulgovernmentdepartments. However, it came at the cost of weakening of vertical and

horizontalpolicyintegration(seeAppendixBforasummarytable ofkey indicators).Thedismantlingof themain climatechange agencies,theUKP4andthechangeinthePresidencydismantled the institutional structure monitoring and enforcing vertical integration.Thisleftavacuuminthecentralgovernmentonthe importance of addressing climate change within the land use sector,as control moveddown tothebureaucratic system and fragmented across various ministries. The dismantling of the overarchinginstitutionalmandateonclimatechangeequatestoa lossofauthoritytoregulate,monitor,assessandsanction,whichis detrimentalfor policy integration (Jenkins,1978; Jordan, 2002; Mickwitzetal.,2009;Oberthür,2009).Moreover,the responsibili-tiesforhorizontalpolicyintegrationbecameblurredwithunclear distinctioninthemandatesoftheMoEF’sandBAPPENAS’s multi-stakeholder bodies (personal communication, NGO representa-tive)(Fig.2).

However,thenewclimatepolicyarchitecturehaspotentialfor improvedinternalpolicycoherence.UndertheDNPItherewere distinct climate change working groups for mitigation and adaptation,butnow theMoEFand BAPPENASsectoral working groups have the potential to facilitate policy discussions and decisions that consider sectoral mitigation and adaptation objectives simultaneously. But in practice, the MoEF leads on climatechangemitigationandBAPPENASleadsonclimatechange adaptation(personalcommunication,civilservantsfromthetwo ministries). Therefore, it will be important that these two ministriesbothexplicitlyconsiderinternalclimatepolicy coher-ence in their respective domains and that they work closely together.

4.2.Internalandexternalclimatepolicycoherence

In what follows,we examine thereferences (text passages) discussingdifferenttypesofpositiveandnegativeinteractionsin thepolicydocuments,theirfrequencyandthesectorstheyreferto. In the 134 references to positive interactions, integrated approachesarementioned 45times,36ofwhichareassociated withaspecificsector.Mostofthesereferencesrelatetoagriculture, followedbyforestry.Two-thirdsofthereferencesarecontainedin only three policy documents: the Strategy for Mainstreaming AdaptationintoNationalDevelopmentPlanning(11references); the National Action Plan Addressing Climate Change (9 refer-ences); and the National Action Plan for Climate Change Adaptation(8references).In fact,theStrategic Planistheonly policydocumentthatdedicatesawholesectiontosynergiesand trade-offsbetweenmitigationandadaptation(BAPPENAS,2012, section2.3,p.18).Referencestoadaptationactionsthathave co-benefits for mitigation (A!+M) or for non-climate policy objectives (A!+O) are at least twice as frequent than those referringtoco-benefitsfrommitigation(respectivelyM!+Aand M_!+O)(Fig.3).

Thevastmajorityofco-benefitsfromadaptationtomitigation refertotheforestrysectorandtheyarediscussedprimarilyinthe National Action Plan for Climate Change Adaptation. The co-benefitsfrommitigationtoadaptationinturnreferprimarilytothe agriculturalsector,followedbythewaterandforestrysectors.This issomewhatunexpected:adaptationmeasurescouldhavebeen expected to refer primarily to agriculture and mitigation to forestry, because agriculture is highly climate-dependent and forestsstorelargeamountofcarbon.Thereisacleareffortamong leading adaptation actors, such as BAPPENAS, to highlight the benefitsfromconsideringadaptationinforestconservation.Thisis a tactic to draw attention to the role of adaptation in REDD+ measures.Inacountryhighlyvulnerabletoclimatechange,but wherefundsandpolicyagendasfocusonmitigationactionsand REDD+,theargumentthat“mitigationactivitiesneedadaptation”

(BAPPENAS,2012,p. 24) isa compelling one.Thus, it is notso surprisingthatthestrongestcallsforintegratedapproachescome fromtheclimatechangeadaptationcamp.

Thereismuchmorelimiteddiscussiononnegativeinteractions ortrade-offsinthepolicydocuments(only34references). Trade-offsarementionedinonly4ofthe25policydocuments.Twothirds of the references occur in the Strategy for Mainstreaming Adaptation into National Development Planning and seven of themcanbefoundfromtheNationalREDD+Strategy.Themajority ofidentifiedtrade-offsoriginatefrommitigationactions(M!A andM!O)andprimarilyaffectforestryandenergysectorsand toalesserextentagricultureandlivelihoods.Thereareonlyfive references to potential negative impacts from adaptation to mitigationandtheyrefertothewaterandinfrastructuresectors (Fig.4).

Fig.3.References topositiveinteractionsbetweenmitigation,adaptation and othernon-climatepolicyobjectivesbysector(darknodes aretypeofpositive interactions,lightnodesaresectors,nodesizereflectsthenumberofreferences, andthewidthoftiesreflectsthenumberofjointreferencestointeractionsand sectors).ThemeaningofthesymbolsinthedarknodesisexplainedinTable1.

4.3.Mainstreamingclimatechangeintodevelopmentplans

Weidentifiedallexplicit referencestothemainstreamingof climatechangeintodevelopmentpolicies.Onlythemain adapta-tion (48 references) and general climate change policies (14 references)reallyaddresstheneedtomainstreamclimatechange intodevelopment.Climatechangemitigationpoliciespaymuch less attention to mainstreaming (5 references). Neither the greenhousegasemissionreductionpolicynortheplanstodevelop REDD+ elaborate in any detail on climatechange-development linkages. Mostnotably, thethree most important development policydocumentsmentionmainstreamingofclimatechangeonly onceandinverygeneralterms(BAPPENAS,2010,p.32).The2010 PresidentialRegulationontheNationalMedium Term Develop-mentPlanbrieflyreferstoclimatechangemitigationtargetsas wellastheneedtoaddressadaptationtoensurefoodsecurityand tostrengthennaturaldisastermanagement.Yet,theMasterplanon theAccelerationandExpansionofIndonesiaEconomic Develop-ment 2011–2025 (MP3EI) highlights economic growth targets, such as the expansion of palm oil and forest plantations and mininginKalimantan,asopposedtoclimatechangemeasures.The onlyreferencetoaclimatechangeimpactistotheeffectofdrought onriceproduction,withoutdiscussionofanyadaptationmeasures. There are no references to potential trade-offs in any of the development plans. Thus, while there is a Strategy for Main-streaming Adaptation into Development Planning and main-streamingis mentioned inboth climatechangeand adaptation policies, in practice climate change objectives have not been integratedinanydetailinanyofthemajordevelopmentplanning documents.

5.Discussion

Basedonevidencefromtheclimatechangeanddevelopment literaturethisarticlehasarguedthateffectiveCPIinthelanduse sectordoesnotjustneedtoensurethemainstreamingofgeneral climate change objectives into sectoral policies, but also the alignmentofclimatechangemitigationandadaptationobjectives witheach otherand theirsimultaneous consideration(Locatelli etal.,2015;Ravindranath,2007).Thearticlere-conceptualizesCPI accordinglyandrefinesthemeaningofinternalandexternalCPIin ordertoexplicitlyinclude theanalysisofpositive and negative interactionsbetweenthetwoclimateobjectives.Thisframework can guide future studies onCPI in policy domainwhere these interactionsareimportant.Todatefewstudieshaveinvestigated country level evidence on internal CPI (Duguma et al., 2014; Somorinetal.,2016).

OurevidenceindicatesthatinIndonesiaonlyafewadaptation and general climate change policies acknowledge synergies between mitigation and adaptation. Moreover, integrated approaches toclimate change have not comprehensively been mainstreamedintodevelopmentplanningandsectoralpolicies. Most efforts to foster integration have been made by the adaptation camp under the framing that _‘mitigation needs adaptation’ (Guariguata et al., 2008). Yet, mitigation policies largely ignore positive andnegative linkages with adaptation. Thisneglectcouldunderminethesuccessofmitigationprojects andincreaseconflicts(DunlopandCorbera,2016;Olanderetal., 2012).It is also againstthe REDD+safeguardsspecified inthe Cancunagreements,whichrequireconsistencybetween mitiga-tion and adaptation needs. Policies that refer to trade-offs betweenmitigationanddevelopmentsuggestthatdevelopment objectivesshouldtakeprecedentoverclimatechangeobjectives, which in the absence of strong political will couldjeopardize climateaction. Thisis a common challenge in CPI (Adelle and Russel, 2013). More broadly, omission of consideration of

co-benefits and trade-offs between the two climate change objectives will hamper attempts to design and implement climatecompatibleformsofdevelopment (Dentonetal., 2014; Stringeretal.,2014).

Our findings also corroborateexisting evidencethat vertical andhorizontalpolicyintegrationarebestunderstoodas comple-mentarystrategiesasopposedtoalternativesandthattheyoften requireanoverarchinggovernancestructureundertheleadofa governmental authority that manages and monitors policy integration processes (Jacob and Volkery, 2004; Jänicke and Jörgens, 2006; Nunan et al., 2012; Oberthür, 2009). Yet, in Indonesia the constellation of power and the interests of key ministries to maintain sectoral control and to appropriate the climateagendaledtothedismantlingoftheoversightstructure, fragmentationofclimatechangeresponsibilitiesacrosssectorsand departmentsandweakeningofpolicyintegration.Thisconfirms thateffectivepolicyintegration,includingthepresenceofallfour dimensionsofourconceptualframework,ultimatelydependson theconstellationofpowerofpolicyactors(Collier,2002; Dalal-ClaytonandBass,2009).

6.Conclusion

ThisarticlecontributesarevisedconceptualizationofCPIinthe land use sector to highlight the need to assess the level of integrationofmitigationandadaptationobjectivesandpoliciesin ordertominimizetrade-offsandtoexploitsynergies.Itsuggests thateffectiveCPIinthelandusesectorrequiresi)internalclimate policycoherencebetweenmitigationandadaptationobjectives;ii) external climatepolicycoherence betweenclimate change and developmentobjectives;iii)verticalpolicyintegrationintheform ofgovernancestructuresthatfacilitatemainstreamingofclimate changeintosectoralpoliciesand;iv)horizontalpolicyintegration byoverarchinggovernancestructuresforcross-sectoral coordina-tion.

Wearguethattheabovefourcharacteristicsareallnecessary todevelopapolicyenvironmentthatfacilitatesclimateresilient land use pathways combining the aims of climate change adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development. We have shownthattheanalysisofthese fourcharacteristicsinspecific countrycontextscan helptodisentangleandidentify different climate policy architectures, detect their strengths and weak-nesses and assess how they evolve over time. However, the compositionofinterestsoftheactorsinsectoralpolicydomains shapesandcanconstrainCPI.InIndonesia,theabsenceofastrong overarching governance structure for climate change policy integration will pose a major challenge for key ministries, challenges to effectively collaborate, integrate and manage multipleclimateanddevelopmentobjectivesandtocoordinate conflictsofpoweramongcompetingsectoralinterests.

Acknowledgments

AppendicesAandB.Supplementarydata

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. envsci.2016.11.004.

References

Adelle,C.,Russel,D.,2013.Climatepolicyintegration:acaseofDejavu?Environ. PolicyGov.23,1–12.

Boer,R.,Perdinan,2008.Adaptationtoclimatevariabilityandclimatechange:its socio-economicaspect.EEPSEAConferenceonClimateChange:Impacts, Adaptation,AndPolicyinSouthEastAsiaWithAFocusonEconomics, Socio-EconomicsandInstitutionalAspects.EconomiandEnvironmentalProgramfor SoutheastAsia,Bali.

Campbell,B.M.,2009.BeyondCopenhagen:REDDplus,agriculture,adaptation strategiesandpoverty.Glob.Environ.Chang19,397–399.

Collier,U.,2002.EUenergypolicyinachangingclimate.In:Lenschow,A.(Ed.), EnvironmentalPolicyIntegration:GreeningSectoralPoliciesinEurope. Earthscan,London.

Dalal-Clayton,B.,Bass,S.,2009.TheChallengesofEnvironmentalMainstreaming: ExperienceofIntegratingEnvironmentintoDevelopmentInstitutionsand Decisions,EnvironmentalGovernanceNo.3.InternationalInstitutefor EnvironmentandDevelopment(IIED),London.

Denton,F.,Wilbanks,T.J.,Abeysinghe,A.C.,Burton,I.,Gao,Q.,Lemos,M.C.,Masui,T., O’Brien,K.L.,Warner,K.,2014.Climate-resilientpathways:adaptation, mitigation,andsustainabledevelopment.In:Field,C.B.,Barros,V.R.,Dokken,D. J.,Mach,K.J.,Mastrandrea,M.D.,Bilir,T.E.,Chatterjee,M.,Ebi,K.L.,Estrada,Y.O., Genova,R.C.,Girma,B.,Kissel,E.S.,Levy,A.N.,MacCracken,S.,Mastrandrea,P.R., White,L.L.(Eds.),ClimateChange2014:Impacts,Adaptation,andVulnerability. PartA:GlobalandSectoralAspects.ContributionofWorkingGroupIItothe FifthAssessmentReportoftheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,UnitedKingdomandNewYork,NY,pp. 1101–1131.

Duguma,L.A.,Wambugu,S.W.,Minang,P.A.,vanNoordwijk,M.,2014.Asystematic analysisofenablingconditionsforsynergybetweenclimatechangemitigation andadaptationmeasuresindevelopingcountries.Environ.Sci.Policy42,138– 148.

Dunlop,T.,Corbera,E.,2016.IncentivizingREDD+:Howdevelopingcountriesare layingthegroundworkforbenefit-sharing.Environ.Sci.Policy63,44–54. Franck,T.M.,1990.ThePowerofLegitimacyAmongNations.OxfordUniversity

Press,NewYork.

Giessen,L.,2013.Reviewingthemaincharacteristicsoftheinternationalforest regimecomplexandpartialexplanationsforitsfragmentation.Int.For.Rev.11, 60–70.

GovernmentofNorway,2011.LetterofIntentBetweentheGovernmentofthe KingdomofNorwayonCooperationonReducingGreehouseGasEmissions fromDeforestationandForestDegradation.MinisterofEnvironmentand InternationalDevelopment,Oslo,Norway.

Guariguata,M.R.,Cornelius,J.P.,Locatelli,B.,Forner,C.,Sánchez-Azofeifa,G.A.,2008. Mitigationneedsadaptation:tropicalforestryandclimatechange.Mitig. AdaptationStrategiesGlob.Change13,793–808.

Hosonuma,N.,Herold,M.,deSy,V.,deFries,R.S.,Brockhaus,M.,Verchot,L., Angelsen,A.,Romijn,E.,2012.Anassessmentofdeforestationandforest degradationdriversindevelopingcountries.Environ.Res.Lett.7.

Jänicke,M.,Jörgens,H.,2006.Newapproachestoenvironmentalgovernance.In: Jänicke,M.,Jacob,K.(Eds.),EnvironmentalGovernanceinGlobalPerspective: NewApproachestoEcologicalModernisation.FreieUniversitätBerlin, DepartmentofPoliticalandSocialSciences,Berlin.

Jacob,K.,Volkery,A.,2004.Institutionsandinstrumentsforgovernment self-regulation:environmentalpolicyintegrationinacross-countryperspective.J. Comp.PolicyAnal.6,291–309.

Jenkins,W.I.,1978.PolicyAnalysis:APoliticalandOrganizationalPerspective. MartinRobertson,London.

Jones,R.N.,Dettmann,P.,Park,G.,Rogers,M.,White,T.,2007.Therelationship betweenadaptationandmitigationinmanagingclimatechangerisks:a regionalresponsefromNorthCentralVictoria,Australia.Mitig.Adaptation StrategiesGlob.Change12,685–712.

Jordan,A.,Lenschow,A.,2010.Environmentalpolicyintegration:astateoftheart review.Environ.PolicyGov.20,147–158.

Jordan,A.,2002.Efficienthardwareandlightgreensoftware:environmental politicalintegrationintheUK.In:Lenschow,A.(Ed.),EnvironmentalPolicy Integration:GreeningSectoralPoliciesinEurope..Earthscan,London. Klein,R.J.T.,Schipper,E.L.F.,Dessai,S.,2005.Integratingmitigationandadaptation

intoclimateanddevelopmentpolicy:threeresearchquestions.Environ.Sci. Policy8,579–588.

Kok,M.T.J.,deConinck,H.C.,2007.Wideningthescopeofpoliciestoaddressclimate change:directionsformainstreaming.Environ.Sci.Policy10,587–599. Lafferty,W.M.,Hovden,E.,2003.Environmentalpolicyintegration:towardsan

analyticalframework.Environ.Polit.12,1–22.

Locatelli,B.,Pavageau,C.,Pramova,E.,DiGregorio,M.,2015.Integratingclimate changemitigationandadaptationinagricultureandforestry:opportunitiesand trade-offs.WIREsClim.Change6,585–598.

Luttrell,C.,Resosudarmo,I.A.P.,Muharrom,E.,Brockhaus,M.,Seymour,F.,2014.The politicalcontextofREDD+inIndonesia:constituenciesforchange.Environ.Sci. Policy35,67–75.

Maraseni,T.N.,Mushtaq,S.,Reardon-Smith,K.,2012.Climatechange,watersecurity andtheneedforintegratedpolicydevelopment:thecaseofon-farm infrastructureinvestmentintheAustralianirrigationsector.Environ.Res.Lett. 7.

McGregor,A.,Challies,E.,Howson,P.,Astuti,R.,Dixon,R.,Haalboom,B.,Gavin,M., Tacconi,L.,Afiff,S.,2015.Beyondcarbon,morethanforest?REDD+ governmentalityinIndonesia.Environ.Plan.A47,138–155.

Mickwitz,P.,Aix,F.,Beck,S.,Carss,D.,Ferrand,N.,Görg,C.,Jenzen,A.,Kivimaa,P., Kuhlicke,C.,Kuindersma,W.,Máñez,M.,Melanen,M.,Monni,S.,Pedersen,A.B., Reinert,H.,vanBommel,S.,2009.ClimatePolicyIntegration,Coherenceand Governance,PeerReport.PartnershipforEuropeanEnvironmentalResearch, Helsinki.

Moser,S.C.,2012.Adaptation,mitigation,andtheirdisharmoniousdiscontents:an essay.Clim.Change111,165–175.

New,M.,Liverman,D.,Schroeder,H.,Anderson,K.,2011.Fourdegreesandbeyond: thepotentialforaglobaltemperatureincreaseoffourdegreesandits implications.PhilosophicaltransactionsoftheroyalsocietyofLondonA: mathematical.Phys.Eng.Sci.369,6–19.

Nilsson,M.,Zamparutti,T.,Petersen,J.E.,Nykvist,B.,Rudberg,P.,McGuinn,J.,2012. Understandingpolicycoherence:analyticalframeworkandexamplesof sector-environmentpolicyinteractionsintheEU.Environ.PolicyGov.22, 395–423.

Nunan,F.,Campbell,A.,Foster,E.,2012.Environmentalmainstreaming:the organisationalchallengesofpolicyintegration.Publ.Admin.Dev.32,262–277. Nurrochmat,D.R.,Dharmawan,A.H.,Obidzinski,K.,Dermawan,A.,Erbaugh,J.T.,

2014.ContestingNationalandInternationalForestRegimes:CaseofTimber LegalityCertificationforCommunityForestsinCentralJava,Indonesia.Forest PolicyandEconomics.

Oberthür,S.,2009.Interplaymanagement:enhancingenvironmentalpolicy integrationamonginternationalinstitutions.Int.Environ.Agreem.9,371–391. Olander,L.P.,Galik,C.S.,Kissinger,G.A.,2012.OperationalizingREDD+:scopeof

reducedemissionsfromdeforestationandforestdegradation.Curr.Opin. Environ.Sustain.4,661–669.

Persson,Å.,2007.DifferentperspectivesonEPI.In:Nilsson,M.,Eckerberg,K.(Eds.), EnvironmentalPolicyIntegrationinPractice:ShapingInstitutionsforLearning.. Earthscan,London.

Purnomo,A.,Katili-Niode,A.,Melisa,E.,Helmy,F.,Sukadri,D.,Sitorus,S.,2013. EvolutionofIndonesia'sClimateChangePolicy:FromBalitoDurban.National CouncilonClimateChange,Jakarta,Indonesia.

QSRInternationalPtyLtd,2012.NVivoqualitativedataanalysissoftware;Version 10.

Ravindranath,N.H.,2007.Mitigationandadaptationsynergyinforestsector.Mitig. AdaptationStrategiesGlob.Change12,843–853.

Russel,D.,Jordan,A.,2010.EnvironmentalpolicyintegrationintheUK.In:Goria,A., Sgobbi,A.,vonHomeyer,I.(Eds.),GovernancefortheEnvironment:A ComparativeAnalysisofEnvironmentalPolicyIntegration.EdwardElgar Publishing,Cheltenham,UK.

Scobie,M.,2016.PolicycoherenceinclimategovernanceinCaribbeansmallisland developingstates.Environ.Sci.Policy58,16–28.

Siegert,F.,Ruecker,G.,Hinrichs,A.,Hoffmann,A.A.,2001.Increaseddamagefrom firesinloggedforestsduringdroughtscausedbyElNino.Nature414, 437–440.

Somorin,O.A.,Visseren-Hamakers,I.J.,Arts,B.,Tiani,A.-M.,Sonwa,D.J.,2016. Integrationthroughinteraction?:Synergybetweenadaptationandmitigation (REDD+)inCameroon.Environ.Plan.CGov.Policy34,415–432.

Stringer,L.C.,Dougill,A.J.,Dyer,J.C.,Vincent,K.,Fritzsche,F.,Leventon,J.,Falcao,M. P.,Manyakaidze,P.,Syampungani,S.,Powell,P.,Kalaba,G.,2014.Advancing climatecompatibledevelopment:lessonsfromsouthernAfrica.Reg.Environ. Change14,713–725.

Swart,R.,Raes,F.,2007.Makingintegrationofadaptationandmitigationwork: mainstreamingintosustainabledevelopmentpolicies?Clim.Policy7,288–303. Verchot,L.V.,vanNoordwijk,M.,Kandji,S.,Tomich,T.P.,Ong,C.K.,Albrecht,A.,

Mackensen,J.,Bantilan,C.,Anupama,J.,Palm,C.A.,2007.Opportunitiesfor linkingadaptationandmitigationinagroforestrysystems.Mitig.Adaptation StrategiesGlob.Change12,901–918.

Weber,R.P.,1990.BasicContentAnalysis.Sage,ThousandOaks,CA.

Widiaryanto,P.,2015.MergingREDD+intoMinistryShouldBeMoreEffective. JakartaPost,Jakarta.

Wilbanks,T.J.,Leiby,P.,Perlack,R.,Ensminger,J.T.,Wright,S.B.,2007.Towardan integratedanalysisofmitigationandadaptation:somepreliminaryfindings. Mitig.AdaptationStrategiesGlob.Change12,713–725.

Yohe,G.,Strzepek,K.,2007.Adaptationandmitigationascomplementarytoolsfor reducingtheriskofclimateimpacts.Mitig.AdaptationStrategiesGlob.Change 12,727–739.

denHertog,L.,Stroß,S.,2013.CoherenceinEUexternalrelations:conceptsandlegal rootingofanambiguousterm.Eur.ForeignAffairsRev.18,373–388.

relatetoenvironmentalpolitics,policyandnaturalresourcegovernance.Herrecent researchfocusesonclimatechangegovernanceinthelandusesector.

DodikRidhoNurrochmatisDirectorofStrategicStudiesandAgriculturePolicyand anAssociateProfessoronForestPolicy&EconomicsatBogorAgriculturalUniversity (IPB).HehasaPhDinforestpolicyandnatureconservationfromtheGeorg-August UniversityofGöttingen,Germany.Hisresearchfocusesonforestry,environmental policyandsocio-economics.HeisamemberoftheInternationalCouncilofIUFRO, servesontheeditorialboardoftheJournalofForestPolicyandEconomics,andis activelyinvolvedinthepolicyprocessesatregional(ASEAN),national,andlocal levels.

JouniPaavolaisProfessorofEnvironmentalSocialScienceandDirectoroftheESRC CentreforClimateChangeEconomicsandPolicy(CCCEP)intheSchoolofEarthand EnvironmentattheUniversityofLeeds.Hisresearchexaminesenvironmental governanceinstitutionsand their environmental,economic and socialjustice implications,withafocusonclimatechangeandbiodiversity.HeleadsCCCEP researchthemeonrapidtransitionsinmitigationandadaptation.Hehaspublished hisresearchinjournalssuchasScience,EcologyandSociety,EcologicalEconomics and Ecosystem Services,and he is member of editorialboards ofEcological EconomicsandEnvironmentalPolicyandGovernance.

IntanMayaSariwasaPolicyAnalysisResearchAssistantatCIFOR(Centrefor InternationalForestryResearch)atthetimewhenthisresearchwasundertaken. ShethenworkedasaSocialDevelopmentandEnvironmentSpecialist forthe RainforestAllianceandisnowaFreelanceConsultantforLandscapeandLifescape Analysis. She holds a Masters in Peace and Conflict, and also in Culture, Environment,andSustainabilityfromtheUniversityofOslo.Herresearchinterests andworkcentersonpolicyanalysis,peaceprocess,communityforestry,livelihood, andsustainableagriculture.ShehasconductedresearchinSumatra,Kalimantan, SulawesiandSumba.

LeandraFatorelliwasapostdoctoralresearcherattheSustainabilityResearch InstituteattheUniversityofLeeds,UKandanAssociateoftheESRCfundedCentre forClimateChangeEconomicsandPolicy(CCCEP)atthetimewhentheresearch

wasundertaken.SheisnowtheCoordinatoroftheManagementUnitofthe GEF-AtlanticForestprojectatFINATEC.LeandraholdsaPhDinSustainableDevelopment onsmallholdersperceptionsaboutenvironmentalchangeintheBrazilianAmazon. Herresearchinterestsincludeenvironmentalchange,climatechangemitigation andadaptation,naturalresourcemanagementandgovernance.

EmiliaPramovawasaresearcherwithCIFOR(CenterforInternationalForestry Research)atthetimethisresearchwasundertaken.Herresearchfocusesonthe synergiesbetweenclimatechangeadaptationandmitigation,andthepoliciesand networksrelatedtoecosystemservices.ShehasconductedresearchintheAsia PacificRegionandinSouthAmerica.EmiliahasaMastersdegreeinSustainable ResourceManagementandabackgroundinpsychologyandcommunications.

BrunoLocatelliisascientistwithCIRAD(FrenchAgriculturalResearchCentrefor InternationalDevelopment)andCIFOR(CenterforInternationalForestryResearch). HeholdsaPhDinEnvironmentalSciences.Hismainresearchinterestsareon ecosystemservicesandadaptationtoclimatechange.

MariaBrockhauswasaSeniorScientistatCIFOR(CenterforInternationalForestry Research)atthetimethisresearchwasundertaken,andisnowaProfessorandthe ChairinInternationalForestryattheUniversityofHelsinki.Herbackgroundisin agriculturaleconomicsandforestpolicy.Inherresearchshefocusesonpolicy, institutionalchangeandsocialnetworkanalysis.From2009to2016shehasbeen leadingtheresearchcomponentonREDD+policiesinCIFOR'sGlobalComparative Study(GCS)onREDD+.