The changing role of research in forest and climate arenas in Brazil and Indonesia

Scientific information is assumed to play a key role in political decision processes based on the idea that rigorous scientific information can lead to more effective, efficient and equitable environmental policy outcomes. The policy arena of forest and climate change is especially characterized by a need for information, for example on drivers of deforestation, the state of forests related to specific reference levels, the amount of carbon stocks etc. With the introduction of the UNFCCC program ‘Reducing emissions from avoided deforestation and forest degradation’ information and evidence is even more required, for example when decisions are made over what forests to be considered, which performance and reference levels to measure, and what amount of carbon credits can be sold. Typically, international research organizations are expected to play a key role in the provision of new knowledge. Yet, in cases where national ownership over the policy process is claimed, national research actors can be expected to appear more prominently in the emerging policy domain. We expect a reflection of power struggles over the control of what science is considered in the policy process. Hence, an analysis of the nature, role and position of diverse – and competing - scientific information providers and the demand for selected information will reflect power dynamics in the policy arena over time. In this paper, we investigate the role of research organisations involved in REDD+ policy arenas in 2 countries (Brazil and Indonesia) over three time periods, with data collected in 2012, 2015, and in 2019 as part of a global comparative policy study of REDD+. We conducted a policy network analysis to determine from and by whom reliable scientific information is requested and shared within national REDD+ policy arenas over time. By employing measures of centrality and brokerage the comparative analysis allows us to assess the role of science and research, and the dynamics over time within the policy domain when we ask whose research matter’s for whom, and what does this imply for policy change.