Using Participatory Theory of Change and Impact Pathways Approach to Enhance REDD+ Readiness in the Hindu Kush Himalaya Region

Ghulam-Muhammad Shah; Lalu Maya Kadel; Farid Ahmad; Basant Pant

doi:10.36808/if/2019/v145i9/148685

Using Participatory Theory of Change and Impact Pathways Approach to Enhance REDD+ Readiness in the Hindu Kush Himalaya Region

Authors

Ghulam-Muhammad Shah International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development P.O. Box 3226, Kathmandu
Lalu Maya Kadel International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development P.O. Box 3226, Kathmandu
Farid Ahmad International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development P.O. Box 3226, Kathmandu
Basant Pant International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development P.O. Box 3226, Kathmandu

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36808/if/2019/v145i9/148685

Keywords:

Theory of Change, Impact Pathways, Participatory Approaches, REDD , Radiness.

Abstract

Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Himalaya (REDD+ Himalaya) being implemented in Bhutan, India, Myanmar, and Nepal is designed to enhance capacities and readiness for REDD+ implementation, mainstream REDD+ in forest management practices both at national as well as at sub-national level in the participating countries. Participating countries are at different stages of REDD+ preparedness which called for adaptive programme design, planning and management, and monitoring, and evaluation approaches capable of addressing stakeholders' needs, identifying crucial factor, and facilitating enablers for successful implementation of REDD+ Himalaya. The paper highlighted effective participatory approaches and mechanisms in developing Theory of Change (ToC) and Impact Pathways (IPs) for REDD+ Himalaya Programme. Based on the learning from ToC and IPs development, and primary data collected through surveys of stakeholders in participating countries, it was found that participatory ToC and IPs has helped REDD+ Himalaya improved ownership of the project among stakeholders, foster effective partnership among stakeholders, and better helped project planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and hence enhanced readiness of participating countries for implementation of REDD+ activities in their respective countries.

References

Alain Frechette, Minoli De Bresser, and Robert Hofstede (2014). UN - REDD Programme Evaluation, Revised Final Inception Report.

Alkin M.C. (2004).Evaluation roots.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Angelsen A., Brockhaus M., Sunderlin W.D. and Verchot L.V. (2012). Analysing REDD+: Challenges and Choices. CIFOR Bogor, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/003805.

Babon A., McIntyre D., Gowae G.Y., Gallemore C., Carmenta R., Di Gregorio M. and Brockhaus M. (2014). Advocacy Coalitions, REDD+, and Forest Governance in Papua New Guinea: How Likely is Transformational Change? Ecology and Society, 19(3): 16. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06486-190316.

Bayrak M.M. and Marafa L.M. (2016). Ten Years of REDD+: A Critical Review of the Impact of REDD+ on Forest-dependent Communities. Sustainability 8: 1-22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070620.

Bickman L. (1987). Using programe theory in evaluation. New direction for program evaluation (Series No. 33) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bickmann L. (1987). The functions of program theory. In: Using program theory in evaluation. Edited by L. Bickmann. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 5-18.

Brockhaus M. and Angelsen A. (2012). Seeing REDD+ through 4Is. In: Analysing REDD+: Challenges and Choices (A. Angelsen, M. Brockhaus, W.D. Sunderlin, and L. Verchot (Eds),. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

Chen H. (1990). Theory driven evaluations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Chen H. (2005) Program theory. In: Encyclopedia of evaluation (S. Mathison ed.) (pp. 340-342). Thousand Oaks, C.A; Sage.

Chhatre A., Lakhanpal S., Larson A.M., Nelson F., Ojha H. and Rao J. (2012). Social safeguards and co-benefits in REDD+: a review of the adjacent possible. Curr Opin Environ Sustain, 4:654-660. DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2012.08.006.

Christensen J. (2003). Auditing Conservation in an Age of Accountability. Conserv. Pract., 4:12-18. DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-4629.2003.tb00065.x.

Christoph Oberlack, Thomas Breu, Markus Giger, Nicole Harari, Karl Herweg, Sarah-Lan Mathez-Stiefel, Peter Messerli, Stephanie Moser, Cordula Ott, Isabelle Providoli, Theresa Tribaldos, Anne Zimmermann, Flurina Schneider. (2019). Theories of change in sustainability science. Understanding how change happens. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 28(2):106-111(6). https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.28.2.8.

Connell, J. P., A. C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr, C.H. Weiss. (1995). New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods, and contexts. Queenstown, MD: Aspen Institute.

Cox M., Arnold G. and Villamayor TomÃ¡s S. (2010). A Review of Design Principles for Community-based Natural Resource Management. Ecology and Society, 15(4): 38. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03704-150438.

Davis B., Gaarder M., Handa S. and Yablonski J. (2012). Evaluating the impact of cash transfer programmes in subSaharan Africa: an introduction to the special issue. J. Dev. Eff., 4:1-8. DOI: 10.1080/19439342.2012.659024.

Dhungana S., Poudel M. and Bhandari T.S. (eds) (2018). REDD+ in Nepal: Experiences from the REDD readiness phase. REDD Implementation Centre, Ministry of Forests and Environment, Government of Nepal.

Dhungana S., Poudel, M. and Bhandari T.S. (eds) (2018). REDD+ in Nepal: Experiences from the REDD readiness phase. REDD Implementation entre, Ministry of Forests and Environment, Government of Nepal.

Donaldson S.I. (2007). Program theory driven evaluation science: Strategies and applications. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ellen H., Lindsay H. and James N. (2014). Creating your theory of change. New Philanthropy Capital: Thinking big. How to use Theory of Change for Systems.

Erin O. Sills, Claudio de Sassi, Pamela Jagger, Kathleen Lawlor, Daniela A. Miteva, Subhrendu K. Pattanayak, and William D. Sunderlin (2017). Department Building the evidence base for REDD+: Study design and methods for evaluating the impacts of conservation interventions on local well-being. Glob. Environ. Change, 43: 148-160. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.02.002.

Esther D. and Diana L. (2006). Agile retrospectives, making good teams great. The pragmatic programmers, LLC Texas, USA. ISBN 0-9776166-4-9.

Ferraro P.J. and Hanauer M.M. (2014). Advances in Measuring the Environmental and Social Impacts of Environmental Programs. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 39:495-517. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-101813-013230.

Ferraro P.J. and Pattanayak S.K. (2006). Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biol., 4:482-488. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040105.

Fischer R., Hargita Y. and GÃ¼nter S. (2016). Insights from the Ground Level? A Content Analysis Review of Multi-national REDD+ Studies Since (2010). Forest Policy and Economics, 66: 47-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.11.003.

Fitzpatric J.L, Sandres J.R and Worthen B.R. (2004). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (Vol. 3). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Gurung J., Chettri N., Sharma E., Ning W., Shah G.M (2019). Evolution of a transboundary landscape approach in the Hindu Kush Himalaya: Key learnings from the Kangchenjunga Landscape. Global Ecology and Conservation, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00599.

Hari K.L., Pant B., Timalsina N., Dhungana S.P., Poudel M. and Karky B.S. (2018). Decentralising REDD+: Lessons Learned from REDD+ Himalaya Project of Nepal. J. Forest and Livelihood, 17 (1).

Hauser J.R., Dong S. and Ding M. (2014). Self-Reflection and Articulated Consumer Preferences. J. Product Innovation Management, 31(1)17-32.

Hayes T. and Persha L. (2010). Nesting Local Forestry Initiatives: Revisiting Community Forest Management in a REDD+ World. Forest Policy and Economics, 12: 545-553. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.forpol.2010.07.003.

Kusters K., Graaf M. De and Buck L. (2016). Guidelines: Participatory Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation of MultiStakeholder Platforms in Integrated Landscape Initiatives. Working Paper. Tropenbos International and EcoAgriculture Partners, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Baylis K., Honey-Rose J., Borner J., Corbera E., Ezzzine-de-Blas D., Ferraro, P.J., Lapeyre, R., Persson U.M., Pfaff A., Wunder, S. (2015). Mainstreaming Impact Evaluation in Nature Conservation. Conservation Letters, January/February 2016, 9(1):58-64.

KlÃ¤y A. and Schneider F. (2015). ZwischenWettbewerbsfÃ¤higkeit und nachhaltiger Entwicklung: Forschungs fÃ¶r derungbraucht PolitikkohÃ¤renz. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 24 (4): 224-227(6). https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.24.4.4.

Kleiman D.G., Reading R.P., Miller B.J., Clark T.W., Scott J.M., Robinson J., Wallace R.L., Cabin R.J. and Felleman F. (2000). Improving the Evaluation of Conservation Programs. Conserv. Biol., 14:356-365. DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98553.x.

Lawlor K., Weinthal E. and Lander L. (2010). Institutions and Policies to Protect Rural Livelihoods in REDD plus Regimes. Glob. Environ. Polit., 10:1-11. DOI: 10.1162/GLEP_a_00028.

Mason P. and Barnes M. (2007). constructing theories of change: Methods and sources. Evaluation, 13(2): 151-170.

Moser S.C. (2016). Can science on transformation transform science? Lessons from co-design. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 20: 106-115.

Ojha H.R., Khatri D., Shrestha K.K. and Sharma N. (2013). Carbon, Community and Governance: Is Nepal Getting Ready for REDD+? Forest, Trees and Livelihoods, 22(4): 216-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2 013.856166.

Ott C. and Kiteme B. (2016). Concepts and practices for the democratisation of knowledge generation in research partnerships for sustainable development. Evidence and Policy, 12(3): 405-430.

Parker C., Mitchell A., Trivedi M. and Mardas N. ( 2009) The Little REDD+ Book: a guide to governmental and nongovernmental proposals for reducing emissions fromdeforestation and degradation. Global Canopy Programme, Oxford, UK.

Pattanayak S.K., Wunder S. and Ferraro P.J. (2010). Show Me the Money: Do Payments Supply Environmental Services in Developing Countries? Rev Environ Econ Policy, 4:254-274. DOI: 10.1093/reep/req006.

Peters S. and Wals A.E.J. (2013). Learning and knowing in pursuit of sustainability: Concepts and tools for transdisciplinary environmental research. Trading zones in environmental education: Creating transdisciplinary dialogue. Edited by M. E. Krasny, J. Dillon. New York: Peter Lang. 79-104.

Pielke Jr. R.A. (2007). The honest broker:Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Pregernig M. (2014). Framings of science-policy interactions and their discursive and institutional effects: Examples from conservation and environmental policy. Biodiversity and Conservation, 23/14: 3615-3639.

Ravikumar A., Larson A.M., Myers R. and Tovar J.G. (2015). Multilevel Governance Challenges in Transitioning towards a National Approach for REDD +: Evidence from 23 Subnational REDD + Initiatives. Inter. J. the Commons, 9: 909-931.

Renkow M. and Byerlee D. (2000). The impacts ofCGIARresearch: a review of recent evidence Food Policy, 35(2010): 391-402.

Rob A., Boswell K. and Thomasoo R. (2018). New Philanthropy Capital: Thinking big. How to use Theory of Change for Systems.

Rogers P.J. (2007). Theory-based evaluation: Reflections ten years on. New Directions for Evaluation, 114: 63-67.

Rogers P.J. (2008). Using program theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation-The International Journal for Theory, Research, and Practice, 14: 29-48.

Rossi P.H., Lipsey M.W. and Freeman H.E. (2004) Evaluation: A systematic approach. Thousand Oaks, C.A: Jossey-Bass.

Stem C., Margoluois R., Salafsky N. and Brown M. (2005). Monitoring and Evaluation in Conservation: a Review of Trends and Approaches. Conserv, Biol., 19:295-309. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00594.x

Van Kerkhoff L. (2014). Developing integrative research for sustainability science through a complexity principles-based approach. Sustainability Science, 9(2): 143-155.

Weiss C.H. (1997). How can theory-based evaluation make greater headway? Evaluation Review, 21(4): 501-524.