Does international climate finance contribute to the adoption of zero deforestation policies? Insights from Brazil and Indonesia

IF 4 2区 农林科学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Heiner von Lüpke , Bence Mármarosi , Charlotte Aebischer , Egor Trushin , Martha Bolaños , Thomas Webb , Eros Nascimento , Djoko Suroso , Gustavo Breviglieri
{"title":"Does international climate finance contribute to the adoption of zero deforestation policies? Insights from Brazil and Indonesia","authors":"Heiner von Lüpke ,&nbsp;Bence Mármarosi ,&nbsp;Charlotte Aebischer ,&nbsp;Egor Trushin ,&nbsp;Martha Bolaños ,&nbsp;Thomas Webb ,&nbsp;Eros Nascimento ,&nbsp;Djoko Suroso ,&nbsp;Gustavo Breviglieri","doi":"10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103480","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>International climate finance (ICF) is a critical mechanism for reducing deforestation and supporting global climate cooperation, yet its effectiveness is often questioned on account of scale and implementation challenges. This paper addresses the question whether ICF, implemented through Official Development Assistance (ODA), is catalysing policy adoption in the land use, land use change, and forestry (LULUCF) sectors of Brazil and Indonesia and henceforth contributes to global climate cooperation. We deploy a novel analytical framework, which assesses the role of ICF in transnational policy processes, and analyse how international and domestic factors influence its effectiveness in supporting LULUCF policy adoption. We find that ICF actors are caught in a dilemma between stated objectives of policy reform and ambitious transformational change while at the same time have their legitimacy questioned as participants in domestic policy processes. Ultimately, political access to decision making spheres on policy adoption for climate and land use are denied to them. In Brazil, competing coalitions debate the implementation of the national forest law, while in Indonesia, ICF is confined to technocratic policy spheres, leaving critical decisions to the political economy sphere. Our findings suggest that for ICF to be effective in catalysing policy adoption and global cooperation, it must address legitimacy concerns through political dialogue and shift from ODA approaches towards equitable cooperation, which involves donors' policy efforts as well. To be politically attractive, better alignment of ICF with national development objectives is also crucial, which could take the form of just transition for climate and land use.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12451,"journal":{"name":"Forest Policy and Economics","volume":"174 ","pages":"Article 103480"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forest Policy and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934125000590","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

International climate finance (ICF) is a critical mechanism for reducing deforestation and supporting global climate cooperation, yet its effectiveness is often questioned on account of scale and implementation challenges. This paper addresses the question whether ICF, implemented through Official Development Assistance (ODA), is catalysing policy adoption in the land use, land use change, and forestry (LULUCF) sectors of Brazil and Indonesia and henceforth contributes to global climate cooperation. We deploy a novel analytical framework, which assesses the role of ICF in transnational policy processes, and analyse how international and domestic factors influence its effectiveness in supporting LULUCF policy adoption. We find that ICF actors are caught in a dilemma between stated objectives of policy reform and ambitious transformational change while at the same time have their legitimacy questioned as participants in domestic policy processes. Ultimately, political access to decision making spheres on policy adoption for climate and land use are denied to them. In Brazil, competing coalitions debate the implementation of the national forest law, while in Indonesia, ICF is confined to technocratic policy spheres, leaving critical decisions to the political economy sphere. Our findings suggest that for ICF to be effective in catalysing policy adoption and global cooperation, it must address legitimacy concerns through political dialogue and shift from ODA approaches towards equitable cooperation, which involves donors' policy efforts as well. To be politically attractive, better alignment of ICF with national development objectives is also crucial, which could take the form of just transition for climate and land use.
国际气候融资是否有助于采用零森林砍伐政策?来自巴西和印度尼西亚的见解
国际气候融资(ICF)是减少森林砍伐和支持全球气候合作的关键机制,但由于其规模和实施挑战,其有效性经常受到质疑。本文探讨了通过官方发展援助(ODA)实施的ICF是否正在促进巴西和印度尼西亚土地利用、土地利用变化和林业(LULUCF)部门的政策采纳,并因此对全球气候合作作出贡献。我们部署了一个新的分析框架,该框架评估了ICF在跨国政策进程中的作用,并分析了国际和国内因素如何影响其在支持LULUCF政策采纳方面的有效性。我们发现,ICF参与者陷入了既定政策改革目标和雄心勃勃的转型变革之间的两难境地,与此同时,他们作为国内政策进程参与者的合法性受到质疑。最终,在气候和土地利用政策采纳的决策领域,他们被剥夺了政治权利。在巴西,相互竞争的联盟就国家森林法的执行进行辩论,而在印度尼西亚,国际森林论坛仅限于技术官僚政策领域,将关键决策留给政治经济领域。我们的研究结果表明,ICF要想有效地促进政策采纳和全球合作,就必须通过政治对话解决合法性问题,并从官方发展援助方式转向公平合作,这也涉及捐助国的政策努力。为了在政治上具有吸引力,将ICF与国家发展目标更好地结合起来也至关重要,这可以采取气候和土地利用的公正过渡的形式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Forest Policy and Economics
Forest Policy and Economics 农林科学-林学
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
7.50%
发文量
148
审稿时长
21.9 weeks
期刊介绍: Forest Policy and Economics is a leading scientific journal that publishes peer-reviewed policy and economics research relating to forests, forested landscapes, forest-related industries, and other forest-relevant land uses. It also welcomes contributions from other social sciences and humanities perspectives that make clear theoretical, conceptual and methodological contributions to the existing state-of-the-art literature on forests and related land use systems. These disciplines include, but are not limited to, sociology, anthropology, human geography, history, jurisprudence, planning, development studies, and psychology research on forests. Forest Policy and Economics is global in scope and publishes multiple article types of high scientific standard. Acceptance for publication is subject to a double-blind peer-review process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信