Stakeholder perceptions of fire & hazeRachel Carmenta, Jacob Phelps, Willy Daeli, Aiora Zabala

Fire & Haze from Sumatran peatlands: a “wicked” environmental problem because...• No easy or technical solutions, especially on peatland

• Hotly contested, political issues, multiple scales, sectors and actors

Q-Methodology to understand stakeholder opinionsA research approach to understandand map the different perspectives and patterns of perceptions or viewpoints of the various stakeholders about a topic

Allows us to find the common threads and identify the different opinions and identifying the common threads

Can become a bridging tool to reach concensus on many different interests

What are the stakeholder perceptions?An application of Q method (> 200 interviews with diverse stakeholders)• Benefits, burdens of fire: 31 statements on a scale of importance • Solutions to fire: 40 statements on a scale of effectiveness

Different statements that cover the full range of opinions are then written on cards, and ranked on distribution table

Tropical peatland fires and transboundary haze

Agroindustry

Singaporean decision-makers

Small farmers

Hired labourers

Local & national decision-makers

External Investors

What are the stakeholder perceptions?Analysis shows how respondents form groups/coalitions and how these have the same or different positions/opinions

e.g. marked in bold

X 6 distinct positions / discourses on costs and benefits of peatland fire in Riau

Key statements characterize the positions

Six distinct positions / discourses on costs and benefits of peatland fire in Riau1. Local costs prioritized over local benefits

2. Concern about socio-economic and health issues

3. Economic & business reputational consequences

4. Fire needed for access to agriculture

5. The Singaporean perspective: Diplomatic tension

6. Quality of life, local, non-agriculture related

e.g. The Singaporean perspective: Diplomatic tension

Which stakeholders share or contest positions on what issues?

Six distinct positions regarding the Benefits and burdens of peatland firesSome positions are shared by different stakeholder types, these are local and social related concerns, e.g.,

1. Local costs prioritized over local benefits 2. Concern about socio-economic and health issues3. Economic & business reputational consequences4. Fire needed for access to agriculture5. The Singaporean perspective: Diplomatic tension6. Quality of life, local, non-agriculture related

Benefits and burdens of peatland firesWe identified which stakeholder types are members to which position.

While other positions have very distinct stakeholder membership, e.g.,

1. Local costs prioritized over local benefits 2. Concern about social issues3. Economic & business reputational consequences Industrial Agri & Riau PolicyCom4. Fire needed for access to agriculture Land Holders (Sm, Med, Lrg)5. The Singaporean perspective: Diplomatic tension Singapore Policy Com6. Quality of life, local, non-agriculture related

Seven distinct positions regarding the effective solutions to peatland firesSome positions are shared by different stakeholder types, others represent only certain groups:

1. All fire fighting and no prevention 2. Favours awareness-raising, not incentives 3. Avoid agricultural expansion on peatlands through government-legal frameworks and sanctions4. Pro fire-free agriculture, and enforcement against use of fire5. Paternalistic, help smallholders with soft measures. No large-scale actions (no anticorruption measures, peat maps, or enforcing the elites)6. Hard measures: enforcement and prevention of agroexpansion7. Focus on fire prevention through soft measures (incentives, seedlings etc)

Seven distinct positions regarding the effective solutions to peatland firesSome positions are shared by different stakeholder types, others represent only certain groups:

1. All fire fighting and no prevention 2. Favours awareness-raising, not incentives 3. Avoid agricultural expansion on peatlands through government-legal frameworks and sanctions4. Pro fire-free agriculture, and enforcement against use of fire5. Paternalistic, help smallholders with soft measures. No large-scale actions (no anticorruption measures, peat maps, or enforcing the elites)6. Hard measures: enforcement and prevention of agroexpansion7. Focus on fire prevention through soft measures (incentives, seedlings etc)

Seeking agreement in solutions

- There is no strong solution (ve+ or ve-) agreed by all

- The most effective solutions have most disagreement:- revoking rogue company licenses- increasing use of canals

- Canal use is the solution option generating most disagreement

How is this analysis helpful for policy and interventions?• Clarify positions / coalitions

• Provide “boundary object” or “issue map” for negotiations• Identify contentious issues• Identify agreement areas

• Target and identify what engagement and outreach communications are needed

• Contributes to an understanding of governance success and failure

Boundary object to facilitate dialogue of contested issues

e.g. The use of canals as a solution to fires

The most controversial and contested costs and benefits include fire as:

A source of diplomatic tensionA tool to access agricultureA cause of losses to industrial agriculture

Different stakeholders benefit and lose from fire in different ways

Multi-stakeholder dialogue on these issues may help reach consensus

Key messages: Cost and Benefitsof peatland fires in Riau

Most effective have most disagreement between stakeholders,

These include - canal use - revoking rouge company licenses

Key messages: effective solutionsto peatland fires in Riau

No clear way forward that is agreed by all

No agreement on which stakeholders to target (e.g. investors, agro-industry, smallholders)

Initial analysis (iii): seeking agreement in solutions

- The most effective solutions are the most contentious and include: revoking rogue company licenses, increased use of canals

- Canal use is the solution option generating most disagreement

- Measures need to be actor specific: whilst all actors are to blame (companies, investors, smallholders etc) enforcement against smallholders and laborers is deemed ineffective, while against companies considered highly effective

- There is no strong solution (ve+ or ve-) agreed by all, rather agreement is with solutions ranking 0 (e.g. RSPO sanctions and raising environmental standards)

Next steps for analysis and engagement: Fire and Haze C1

AnalysisRefining our interpretation of the factors (discourses)Identify which stakeholders are populating which discoursesLinking position in costs benefits discourse, to that in solutionAnalyze the perceived effectiveness and degree of agreement on

solution options in current discussions and practice.

EngagementResults on solutions to COPStakeholder workshop in Pekanbaru Multi Criteria Evaluation on solutions

Fire & Haze from Sumatran peatlands: a “wicked” environmental problem because...• No easy or technical solutions, especially on peatland

• Hotly contested, political issues, multiple scales, sectors and actors

What are the stakeholder perceptions?An application of Q method (> 200 interviews with diverse stakeholders)• Benefits, burdens of fire: 31 statements on a scale of importance • Solutions to fire: 40 statements on a scale of effectiveness

Analysis shows you how respondents share similar opinions on statement ranking

Marked in bold

Tropical peatland fires and transboundary haze

Agroindustry

Singaporean decision-makers

Small farmers

Hired labourers

Local & national decision-makers

External Investors