Advocating for change? How a civil society-led coalition ...€¦ · How a civil society-led...

Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development

Advocating for change? How a civil society-led coalition influences

the implementation of the Forest Rights Act

Clare Barnes MSc. Advisor: Dr. Frank van LaerhovenPromotor: Prof. dr. Peter Driessen


What strategy choices do CSCs make to

influence forest policy implementation,

why, and with what potential effect?


The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006, rules 2008, rules amended 2012

Case study: Forest Rights Act

5x

28x


Politics continues: deliberations, struggles, debates

Policy design Policy implementation

Forest Rights Act (2006)Rules (2008)

• Long, heated debate• Coherent coalition of

people’s movements, NGOs, Academics successfully pushed for FRA

• Shared policy beliefs• Non trivial

coordinated behaviour

• Implementation shifts to States

• Sluggish implementation• FD generally resisting• Many in civil society not

completely satisfied (Bhullar, 2008)

• What is the CSC doing?


Identification of CSC at national level

Sabatier & Weible (2007) criteria:

1. Shared policy beliefs

• Signatories to statements and open letters issued by the CSD

2. Non-trivial degree of coordination

• 3 meetings per year 2011-2014

• All result in shared statements of key issues and recommendations

Coalition of NGOs, CBOs, activists, lawyers, academics

Research focus: Study coalition’s actions at national level and in 2 states: Andhra Pradesh and Odisha


Conceptual Framework draws on:

ACF Sabatier & Weible, 2007

Power Avelino & Rotmans, 2011; Arts & Van Tatenhove, 2004;

Network Analysis Adam & Kriesi, 2007; Krinsky& Crossley, 2014

Political Ecology Blaikie & Springate-Baginski, 2007

Civil Society Berlin, 2009; Bebbington et al. 2007;

Env. Governance Biermann & Siebenhüner (2009)


Data collection

22 in-depth interviews with coalition members plus analysis of main listserv (July-Aug. 2014)

16 interviews with CSOs opposing FRA implementation, experts and high-level MoEFand Forest Department officials (July-Aug. 2014)

Analysis of 1000 English lang. & 450 Hindi lang. newspaper articles on FRA (2008- June 2014)

Analysis of CFR-LA listserv (2012-2014)


Results


Cognitive Executive Normative

National State

Research widely shared (EPW, CFR-LA meetings, websites)

Odisha: Alliance of research organisations

AP: none


National level (2012-2014)

Collaborative Conflictive

Consultation on NPs and FRA

2 Convention/ Public hearing/ Rally

13

Provide input on draft government docs

2 Open protest letters 7

Need to balance collaborative and conflictive strategies (4 larger NGOs, 2 lawyers)

Point of contention: Joint Committee membership (2 academics, 4 NGOs, 2 activists)




State


None Odisha:rallies

AP: None


• Member level• English language press not widely used

• 48% of the articles in which quoted, or work was reported, were in high readership newspapers - 13 articles

• Framing: Legality (1/2 articles), historical injustice (1/4 articles)• Hindi language national press: 450 articles, 1 quote





National

Audience

Shared research, FRA

and local knowledge

Executive

Consultations,input

ExecutiveBureaucracy

Rallies, joint letters,

conventions

ExecutiveLegislative

Wider public

State

Audience

Odisha

ExecutiveLegislative

Wider public

Member level (bothstates)

Audience

Conducted research,

Knowledge used in exec.

strategies

Discussions

ExecutiveBureaucracyLegislative

Letters,advocacy

ExecutiveBureaucracyLegislative

Print media-supportive

only

Readers


Coalition level resources

National level:

• CFR-LA (learning and advocacy group)

• Open Google group, 350+ members

• NGOs (45%), People’s movements/activists (25%), researchers (15%)

• 30-100 new posts per month – mostly to share info.

• Few active members, many silent recipients

• Opportunity to meet frequently (x3 per year)

State level:

Regular meet ups in Odisha, none in AP

Internal coalition network Legitimacy Institutional SettingAbility to connect Beliefs Members



Diverse secondary beliefs: implementation issues


• All share at least one implementation issue with another organisation

• Average number of issues shared: 4-5 of 26

• Maximum number of issues shared: 9 of 26 by 4 organisations

• No clusters based on State or type of actor (NGO/ activist)


Well connected BUT weak ties

Diverse secondary beliefs: implementation issues



Diverse secondary beliefs: why FRA should be implemented



• No membership list

• Loose, open heterogeneous coalition of NGOs, activists, people’s movements, CBOs, journalists, researchers, lawyers and other individuals

• Network organisations within CSC


Legitimacy: moral justification

Refer to on the ground knowledge, long-term involvement in related issues, involvement in early policy making

Legitimacy: Consent and acceptance

- MoEF/FD generally suspicious, question motivation, limit accepted roles to less political activities

- Variation within CSC

Wider Institutional Setting:

- Extremely influential e.g. bifurcation

- Current form of development pushed by centremeans little room for FRA or CSC



Influence of resource mix and anticipated success on strategy choices

Ability to make coalition level strategy choices

Perceived range of strategy types and target audiences available

Strength to employ the chosen strategies

Diffuse secondary beliefs, no dedicated funding at coalition level (-)

Connections but lack of legitimacy amongst MoEF

target elsewhere

Diffuse secondary beliefs and personal motivation, lack of dedicated funding (-)

listserv (though used mainly for knowledge sharing) (+/-)

Lack of dedicated funding plus hostile institutional setting collaborative strategies

knowledge, argumentation skills of larger NGOs and academics stronger cognitive strategies

Personal motivation determines where direct efforts


Conclusion

Resources Strategy Choices Potential effects

Positive: listserv, can draw on knowledge, argumentation skills and connections of members

Mix of strategies at national level

Evidence of impact of collaborative strategies in circulars, amendment of 2012

Negative: No dedicated funding at coalition level, diffused secondary beliefs, lack of legitimacy in eyes of Forest Dept.

Strong cognitive elements

Institutional Setting:hostile

Normative strategies only supplementary


Thank you!

Contact: Clare Barnes

[email protected]

Frank van Laerhoven Peter Driessen


Extra slides


Politics continues: deliberations, struggles, debates

Policy design(early policy making)

Policy implementation(late policy making)

Advocacy Coalition Framework:How coalitions advocate for policy change (Sabatier, 1988; Adam and Kriesi, 2009)

Civil society networks & Social movements influence agenda-setting, pushing for legislation (Edwards, 2009; Krinsky and Crossley, 2014; Tilly, 2005)

Advocacy Coalition Framework:Coalitions after success???

Civil society influence on implementation???Legislation ≠success in forest policies


Status of FRA implementation (end 2015, MoTA data)

National Total IC CC

Claims filed

44,13,727 42,99,589 (97.4%)

1,14,138

Titlesdistributed

17,11,045(38.8%)

16,69,716(97.6%)

41,329

AP Total IC CC

Claims filed

411,012 400,053(97.3%)

10,959

Titlesdistributed

169,370(41.2%)

167,263(98.8)

2,107

Odisha Total IC CC

Claims filed

6,16,137 6,03,271(97.9%)

12,866

Titlesdistributed

3,54,404(57.5%)

3,49,400(98.6%)

5004


Resources Indicators

Coalition level

Internal coalition network Ability to connect: CFR-LA listserv, meetingsHomogeneity of beliefs: reasons why FRA should be implemented, main implementation issues (DNA)Heterogeneity of members: types

Legitimacy Moral standing: justification of involvement in FRA implementationConsent and acceptance: roles in MoEF/ FD eyes, commissioned work

Wider institutional setting Q-What affects their effectiveness?

Members level

Finance Perception of reliability and flexibility of funding

Knowledge Of FRA and related acts: involvementOf ground issues: activities/research

Argumentation skills History of advocacy, use of RTI

Personal motivation Proportion of FRA in work, involvement in CSD

External connections With other CSO networks, connections with state

Legitimacy Legality: registered


Strategies Indicators

Cognitive - Research conducted and communicated to state actors or to the media

- Use of local knowledge- FRA policy knowledge

Executive Evidence of specific collaborative or conflictive strategies

Normative Newspaper analysis of organisations mentioned in the media and their framing of FRA.

Mentioned is defined as directly quoted, events covered, or open letters published. Frames used



National State Member

Research widely shared (EPW, CFR-LA meetings, websites)

Odisha: Alliance of research organisations

AP: none

- Local case studies

- Translations- Guide books- State and

national level institutional mapping



State Member

Collaborative Conflictive Collaborative Conflictive

Odisha: rallies Regional consultation support (1 large NGO in Odisha and AP)

Discussions with officials (most)

Individual letters, advocacy (all)


Organisation level resources

Resource Availability

Finance lack of reliable, dedicated, long term funding -

Knowledge Can draw on knowledge of 1) the FRA and related acts, and 2) on the ground issues

+

Argumentation skills

Experience in influencing previous or current related policies

+

Personal motivation

CSD: continuation of the fight for controlNGOs/CBOs: link with communities, continuation of organisation

+

External connections

Plentiful and varied +

Legitimacy: legality

Nearly all registered under the Societies Act or sector equivalent

+


Scientific contributions

• ACF – binding power of beliefs in policy implementation (late policy making)

Differences in shared beliefs come to the fore attention is splintered, transaction costs of working together

Apparent connection between layers of beliefs

Level of coordination: Individual actions alongside coalition strategies

• Analytical framework:

Resource mix combined with wider institutional setting strategy choices (not individual resource)

With and against the state simultaneously

Multiple pathways to impact


CSC recommendations for reflection

• Which issues can best be tackled as a coalition? At which level (state or national)?

• Focus on shared policy beliefs – how to keep momentum when lack of funding for collaboration?

• How to effect cultural change within the FD –systematic or adhoc approach?


Forest Tenure Distribution in Developing Countries 2002-2012


NL 41,000 km2

INDIA 3,287,590 km2

USA 9,631,418 km2

Copernicus Institute of Sustainable DevelopmentSource FSI 2013

70 Mha forest land in India (21%)(NL is 4.1 Mha)

Advocating for change? How a civil society-led coalition ...€¦ · How a civil society-led...

Documents

Transcript of Advocating for change? How a civil society-led coalition ...€¦ · How a civil society-led...