Heiner von Lüpke , Bence Mármarosi , Charlotte Aebischer , Egor Trushin , Martha Bolaños , Thomas Webb , Eros Nascimento , Djoko Suroso , Gustavo Breviglieri
{"title":"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","authors":"Heiner von Lüpke , Bence Mármarosi , Charlotte Aebischer , Egor Trushin , Martha Bolaños , Thomas Webb , Eros Nascimento , Djoko Suroso , 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":"{\"title\":\"Does international climate finance contribute to the adoption of zero deforestation policies? Insights from Brazil and Indonesia\",\"authors\":\"Heiner von Lüpke , Bence Mármarosi , Charlotte Aebischer , Egor Trushin , Martha Bolaños , Thomas Webb , Eros Nascimento , Djoko Suroso , 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}","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}
Does international climate finance contribute to the adoption of zero deforestation policies? Insights from Brazil and Indonesia
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.
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.