Lazy lands or carbon sinks? : frames and integration in the nexus of forest, agriculture and climate change

The interactions among the forest, agriculture and climate change policy domains are quite complex. On the one hand, forests provide important livelihoods and ecosystem services. These include protection of biodiversity and water sources, climate regulation, absorption of CO2, the reduction of the risks and impacts of extreme weather events, and important recreational and spiritual values in different parts of the world,  just to mention a few. On the other hand, agriculture provides food, animal feed, bioenergy, and employment, and is a source of income for more than 500 million smallholder farmers globally. However, commercial agriculture is considered the main driver of deforestation. This tension has been enhanced in the past by conflicting policies (including agricultural subsidies) that promoted increasing agricultural productivity and considered standing forest as “lazy lands” (land with no economic or social value). This led to clearcutting forest to make land “productive”. While this framing has changed, and different instruments have been developed to protect and conserve forests, the expansion of agriculture into forested areas continues. Moreover, both forests and agriculture are highly vulnerable and affected by climate change. Paradoxically at the same time, deforestation, forest degradation and agriculture contribute to about one quarter of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. So there is functional interplay among the three domains, as they are all connected in biogeophysical and socio-economic or economical terms. As such, greater coherence can be promoted through improved coordination and integration among the domains. The global governance systems of forests, agriculture and climate change are characterized by their fragmented nature, that is, an increasing number of institutions governing each domain, a multitude of actors from different spheres of society, and a wide array of norms and discourses. Specifically, this dissertation addresses this fragmentation from a framing perspective. Frames are understood in this dissertation as ‘underlying structures of belief, perception and appreciation’ (Schön and Rein 1994: 23) and framing as ‘...the process by which people develop a particular conceptualization of an issue or reorient their thinking about an issue’ (Chong and Druckman 2007: 104). This dissertation is positioned solidly within global environmental governance research. It aims to further our knowledge of the role of framing in the integration of global governance in the nexus of forests, agriculture and climate change. In order to do so, three research questions are analysed: RQ1: What efforts have been taken to enhance integration among the forest, agriculture and climate change governance systems and how does framing contribute to the degree of integration? RQ2: How did forests receive an increasingly prominent place on the global climate change agenda, while agriculture is still lagging behind, and what role has framing played in this degree of integration? RQ3: How and to what extent has framing played a role in the design and evolution of the Global Alliance on Climate Smart Agriculture (GACSA)? Different conceptual frameworks are developed in each chapter to answer the research questions. These are encompassed within the Integrative Governance literature and are combined with frame theory elements. The methodologies used involve semi-structured interviews, an international workshop with experts active in one or more of the studied domains, and in-depth literature reviews, content and document analyses. The dissertation concludes that compatible frames are a precondition for integration.  Compatible frames have the potential to enable integration or at least, not hinder it. Efforts to integrate incompatible frames among domains can result in broad and meaningless agreements, with a significant amount of time and resources invested. Even though the forest, agriculture and climate change governance systems are highly fragmented and encompass multiple frames, actors may attempt to bridge and connect compatible frames among domains. Strategic framing can be used in different ways to enhance integration (e.g. by expanding frames or reframing). Framing is then considered a skill and a necessary quality for actors engaging in integration efforts. The dissertation also presents a model for framing and integration that provides some insights into how framing can be used to enhance or prevent integration. It finalizes with a set of policy recommendations, including the development of a land-use readiness fund and the need to promote approaches outside the intergovernmental frameworks, where different frames are present and the fear of binding commitments does not play a role.   The dissertation concludes that the fragmentation of global governance is a fact, and incompatible frames are an important factor influencing this fragmentation. Also, while actors may connect compatible frames among domains, these frames will not necessarily support sustainable paths. This dissertation argues that we need to identify and support frames that enhance the desired transformative changes towards sustainability

Climate-smart land use requires local solutions, transdisciplinary research, policy coherence and transparency

Successfully meeting the mitigation and adaptation targets of the Paris Climate Agreement (PA) will depend on strengthening the ties between forests and agriculture. Climate-smart land use can be achieved by integrating climate-smart agriculture (CSA) and REDD+. The focus on agriculture for food security within a changing climate, and on forests for climate change mitigation and adaptation, can be achieved simultaneously with a transformational change in the land-use sector. Striving for both independently will lead to competition for land, inefficiencies in monitoring and conflicting agendas. Practical solutions exist for specific contexts that can lead to increased agricultural output and forest protection. Landscape-level emissions accounting can be used to identify these practices. Transdisciplinary research agendas can identify and prioritize solutions and targets for integrated mitigation and adaptation interventions. Policy coherence must be achieved at a number of levels, from international to local, to avoid conflicting incentives. Transparency must lastly be integrated, through collaborative design of projects, and open data and methods. Climate-smart land use requires all these elements, and will increase the likelihood of successful REDD+ and CSA interventions. This will support the PA as well as other initiatives as part of the Sustainable Development Goals

Framing and integration in the global forest, agriculture and climate change nexus

This article contributes to the debate on Integrative Governance by studying integration in the global forest–agriculture–climate change nexus. Since the 1990s, the role of the land-use sector, in particular forests and agriculture, has become increasingly prominent in climate change debates due to its vulnerability and its contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions. Addressing agriculture, climate change and forest policies in an integrated way could therefore create important synergies and reduce trade-offs. This article aims to analyse the extent of integration in current global governance in the nexus of agriculture, forests and climate change, and to explain this extent of integration. Based on the analysis of secondary data, participation in key events and semi-structured interviews, this article concludes that efforts to enhance integration have taken different forms for the different pairs of domains (climate change–agriculture, agriculture–forest, forest–climate change) as well as for the nexus of the three. Integration has been mainly enhanced through soft law, programmes and integrative approaches (e.g. landscape approach, climate smart agriculture, agroforestry). The analysis also shows that the extent of integration among the governance systems has differed. Interplay management efforts on forests and climate change have been relatively successful. Agriculture and forest, and agriculture and climate have low and modest levels of integration respectively, except adaptation in agriculture, which enjoys higher integration levels. Differences in integration can be explained by the medium to high degrees of legalization and the (in)compatibility of the dominant frames present in the different governance systems. Furthermore, our results show that integration in a governance system with a high degree of legalisation, and dominated by one regime, as is the case in climate change, presents important challenges. In such cases, integration might have greater potential outside the intergovernmental regime through soft law approaches.</p

Seeing the forest, missing the field : Forests and agriculture in global climate change policy

As the climate change problem becomes more eminent, there is more pressure to increase efforts in all sectors and countries. The land-use sector is seen as an option to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and key in achieving a balance in GHG emissions and removals by sinks by 2050, as envisioned in the Paris Agreement. This article presents two comparative case studies within the climate change arena and aims to understand how and why: 1) tropical deforestation and forest degradation have secured a prominent place on the international climate change agenda, while 2) agriculture has not secured a prominent place. We use the agenda-setting multi-stream approach (MSA), while adding a framing layer. Based on primary data (including an international workshop with forest and agriculture experts, interviews, and participation in key international meetings), and secondary data, this article concludes that REDD + is an example of how a condition was framed as a problem, a viable proposal was developed, and political will and receptivity was shown, all of which placed REDD + high on the agenda, and generated its legal and methodological framework over the course of ten years. In these efforts, the role of policy entrepreneurs was key. Agriculture, on the other hand, is a more complex sector with multiple interests and millions of stakeholders. The consideration of agriculture, in particular its mitigation component, is therefore a highly contentious issue. The fear of new binding commitments and the potential threat to food security and production, and the lack of a convincing proposal that addresses the multiple values of agriculture has impeded substantive progress. Also, the absence of a committed policy entrepreneur limits the place of agriculture in the climate change agenda under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.</p

Climate-smart land use requires local solutions, transdisciplinary research, policy coherence and transparency

Successfully meeting the mitigation and adaptation targets of the Paris Climate Agreement (PA) will depend on strengthening the ties between forests and agriculture. Climate-smart land use can be achieved by integrating climate-smart agriculture (CSA) and REDD+. The focus on agriculture for food security within a changing climate, and on forests for climate change mitigation and adaptation, can be achieved simultaneously with a transformational change in the land-use sector. Striving for both independently will lead to competition for land, inefficiencies in monitoring and conflicting agendas. Practical solutions exist for specific contexts that can lead to increased agricultural output and forest protection. Landscape-level emissions accounting can be used to identify these practices. Transdisciplinary research agendas can identify and prioritize solutions and targets for integrated mitigation and adaptation interventions. Policy coherence must be achieved at a number of levels, from international to local, to avoid conflicting incentives. Transparency must lastly be integrated, through collaborative design of projects, and open data and methods. Climate-smart land use requires all these elements, and will increase the likelihood of successful REDD+ and CSA interventions. This will support the PA as well as other initiatives as part of the Sustainable Development Goals