Next Article in Journal
Spatiotemporal Analysis of Economic and Ecological Coupled Coordination: A Case Study of the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Urban Agglomeration
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Urban Land-Use Planning on Housing Prices in Chiang Mai, Thailand
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 13
Issue 8
10.3390/land13081137
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Stakeholder Participation in REDD+ Program: The Case of the Consultation Process in Laos

by
Soukphavanh Sawathvong
1,
Kimihiko Hyakumura
2,* and
Taiji Fujisaki
3
1
Department of Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Xiengyuen Village, Chanthaboury District, Vientiane P.O. Box 2932, Laos
2
Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Kyushu University, 744 Motooka, Nishi-ku, Fukuoka 819-0395, Japan
3
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), 2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Kanagawa 240-0115, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2024, 13(8), 1137; https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081137
Submission received: 30 June 2024 / Revised: 20 July 2024 / Accepted: 22 July 2024 / Published: 25 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Land Socio-Economic and Political Issues)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
REDD+ aims to mitigate climate change by reducing deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries while ensuring social and environmental benefits through the involvement of diverse stakeholders. While several studies evaluate stakeholder participation in various aspects of REDD+, such as the level and type of stakeholder participation at both the project and national context level, there is a lack of research on how the government conducted the consultation meetings across all administrative levels. The objective of this study is to evaluate the participation of different stakeholders in REDD+ in Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), or Laos, funded by the World Bank, with a focus on analyzing government consultation processes to identify drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. The study applied both a literature review and online interviews, conducted with government officials and representatives of CSOs, which took place from March to April 2020. The results indicate significant involvement from cross-sectoral stakeholders. However, central government agencies and development partners dominated stakeholder participation, potentially influenced by government ownership. Non-state stakeholders, though invited to the consultations, had limited participation, highlighting the need for greater emphasis on their roles to ensure the integration of diverse interests and views in the REDD+ initiative.

1. Introduction

REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) is a key initiative launched in 2008 to combat deforestation and promote sustainable forest management in developing countries [1,2]. By improving forest management practices, REDD+ aims to mitigate climate change, reduce poverty, foster rural development, and protect biodiversity [3,4]. This mechanism requires the involvement of various stakeholders at local, national, and global levels to ensure fair and inclusive planning and implementation, making it a significant tool for achieving environmental and socio-economic benefits [5,6,7,8,9,10].
Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), or Laos, has actively engaged in REDD+ initiatives since 2008, implementing several pivotal pilot projects with collaborative support from development partners, non-government organizations (NGOs), and the private sector. These initiatives encompass projects such as the Participatory Land and Forest Management project for Reducing Deforestation (PAREDD) [11], the Climate Protection through Avoided Deforestation project (CliPAD) [12], the Scaling-Up Participatory Sustainable Forest Management Project (SUFORD-SU) [13], REDD+ pilot activities at the Xe Pian National Protected Area [14], the avoidance of deforestation and forest degradation in the border area of southern Laos and central Vietnam for the long-term preservation of carbon sinks and biodiversity (CarBi) [15], Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests (LEAF) [15], and a Lao public–private sub-national REDD+ pilot project proposed by the New Chip Xeng Group Co., Ltd. [15]. Experiences from the PAREDD and CliPAD were fundamental for REDD+ project formulation in Laos.
Laos initiated a nationwide REDD+ program in collaboration with the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), supported by the World Bank, in 2008. In 2014, Laos secured funding from FCPF for the preparatory phase of REDD+ readiness. The FCPF mandates participants to submit the Emission Reduction Proposal Idea Note (ERPIN) to gain access to the result-based payment. The Lao government submitted the ERPIN to FCPF in 2016, followed by submitting the formulation of the Emission Reduction Program Document (ERPD). The ERPD was approved during the 18th FCPF participant meeting in Paris, France, in 2018. In 2020, the Emission Reductions Payment Agreement (ERPA) was signed. The program aims to contribute to the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) by removing 60–69 million tCO2e from the forest by 2020 compared to 2000 [16].
Throughout the ERPD formulation, diverse subjects were addressed, including institutional arrangements, land management, safeguards, grievance redress mechanisms, benefit-sharing, non-carbon benefits, and carbon accounting at specific levels. Notably, the consultation process focused on the analysis of drivers and interventions, as well as the social and environmental impacts, engaging stakeholders from central to village levels [16]. Moreover, stakeholder consultations were undertaken at various levels to identify the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, along with potential solutions to address these drivers. According to the National REDD+ Strategy (NRS), stakeholder participation is envisioned to be proactive and effective, open, and credible to facilitate inter-sectoral coordination for NRS implementation [17]. Furthermore, to discern the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, a consultation process took place at the central, provincial, and village levels during the initial stage of ERPD development. Two key coordinating ministries were involved: the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MoNRE).
Leading organizations included central government agencies with mandates related to the forest and environmental sectors, specifically the Department of Forestry (DoF) under the MAF and the Department of Forest Resources Management (DFRM) under the MoNRE, in cooperation with development partners such as the World Bank, the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), and UN-REDD/FAO.
Invitation letters for the central-level consultation meetings were prepared and dispatched by the DoF, employing various methods tailored to the geographical locations of the participants. For targeted participants within Vientiane capital, invitations were hand-delivered, ensuring receipt at least three days prior to the meetings. However, despite the intention for early delivery, these letters were dispatched only one day before the scheduled date of the meetings. Targeted participants from other provinces received their invitations through email and fax one day prior to the event.
Three different consultations on identifying drivers of deforestation and forest degradation were conducted at the central level in Vientiane capital. These meetings were organized by six technical working groups (TWGs), established by Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and led by the DoF, with members from related ministries along with technical support from development partners such as the World Bank, KfW/GIZ, JICA, and UN-REDD/FAO. The first consultation meeting involved central government agencies, mass organizations, and academic and research institutions. The second and third consultations, organizing six TWGs with technical support from development partners and held on the same day, targeted the private sector in the morning and CSOs and international INGOs in the afternoon. The participants encompassed entities related to forest conservation, agriculture, poverty reduction, education, health, and human rights.
Provincial consultation meetings followed the completion of a consultation meeting for central government agencies. The six TWGs organized the consultation meeting in the province with the support of development partners in the Provincial Agriculture and Forestry office meeting room of each province. Furthermore, for conducting consultation meetings at the district level, meetings were organized by the provincial government agencies with support from the six TWGs and development partners in the district meeting room of the governor’s office. Targeted village clusters were selected at the district-level consultation meetings. Moreover, the consultation at the village level was organized by the district government agency in the selected targeted village clusters, with support from the provincial government agency, the six TWGs, and development partners. Representatives from all villages within the selected targeted village clusters were invited. Additionally, outputs from these consultations were documented as meeting minutes and subsequently presented to all participants for consent. For example, during the village-level consultation, the district government agency reviewed the draft of the minutes with a representative of the villagers from the targeted villages. Participants were asked to agree or disagree with the contents, and the final minutes of the meeting were approved through the signature of district government agency representatives and the head of the village.
The research on stakeholder participation in REDD+ has become a growing concern globally. Pham et al. [18] validated the Vietnamese government’s claim of improved stakeholder participation by analyzing actor involvement from 2011 to 2019. Sunderlin et al. [19] found that the contribution of REDD+ to the well-being and income of local stakeholders was marginal, suggesting a need for better integration of local needs and priorities, and Chorito and Assefa [20] emphasized the neglected role of local actors in Ethiopia’s REDD+ strategies. Effective participation methodologies have also been examined, such as Schmitt and Mukungu’s [21] exploration of community participation in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Gupta’s [22] discussion on integrating stakeholder participation with watershed management to enhance REDD+ potential. Additionally, several barriers to effective stakeholder participation have been identified, with a recurring theme being the imbalance of power among stakeholders, as noted by Milbank et al. [23], who assessed the progress of REDD+ projects towards sustainable development goals and the challenges in aligning REDD+ rules with national policies. The mentioned studies have examined the effectiveness of stakeholder participation in REDD+ projects. However, significant barriers to effective participation remain, including power imbalances among stakeholders and challenges in aligning REDD+ rules with national policies.
Several studies focus particularly on the context of Laos. Boutthavong et al. [24] delved into the discourse surrounding stakeholder participation and assessed the extent of their engagement in three distinct REDD+ projects within Laos at the project level. The study highlights that while there are opportunities for stakeholder engagement, the level of participation varies significantly among different groups. Effective participation requires clear communication, capacity building, and addressing power imbalances among stakeholders. In contrast, Fujisaki et al. [25] addressed the same issues in the REDD+ context but made comparisons among Asian countries, focusing on the national level. The study found that stakeholder participation in Laos’ REDD+ framework is often limited and not easily grasped. The selection process for stakeholder membership in REDD+ committees needs to ensure broader and more inclusive engagement to foster effective participation. Lestrelin et al. [15] provides insights into the institutional setup of REDD+ in Laos. The research identifies key drivers, agents, and institutions involved in the process. It underscores the importance of creating institutional frameworks that facilitate stakeholder participation and address the socio-political dynamics influencing REDD+ implementation.
Moreover, Cole et al. [26] examines the objectives, ownership, and engagement in Laos’ REDD+ policy landscape. They highlight that public dialogue and transparency are crucial for building trust among stakeholders. The study suggests that REDD+ knowledge dissemination among national stakeholders is essential for enhancing engagement and ensuring that various interests are represented in the policy-making process. Mustalahti et al. [27] examines the participation of civil society in the REDD+ and FLEGT-VPA processes in Laos. The study explores the resources available and the rules governing these processes, assessing how effectively civil society can engage and influence outcomes. The findings highlight the critical role of civil society in shaping policies related to forest management and conservation, as well as the challenges they face in ensuring meaningful participation. However, there is a lack of a research concerning the evaluation of which stakeholders participate in each level of consultation meetings organized by the Lao government, and how. Consequently, it is crucial to explore stakeholder participation and how stakeholders express their thoughts in the consultation process at each level regarding the identification of drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, along with potential solutions, because their perceptions of deforestation and forest degradation at the local level are directly related to their livelihood activities.
This study aims to evaluate the participation of various stakeholders, ranging from central to village level, in the REDD+ initiative in Laos funded by the World Bank. Two key research questions guide this investigation: firstly, who the stakeholders participating in the consultation process at each level are, and secondly, to what extent they contributed to the consultation process at each level. By shedding light on the dynamics of stakeholder participation in REDD+ initiatives in Laos, this research endeavors to provide valuable insights for policymakers, practitioners, and scholars involved in REDD+ implementation.

2. Methodology

The analysis presented in this paper is grounded in desktop-based research, which involves the collection of data from various sources, including the official environmental- and forestry-related documents accessible online, as well as interviews conducted remotely. The examination of official documents encompassed a review of forestry-related policies, laws, decrees, and regulations in Laos. Additionally, REDD+-related official reports, such as government decisions and agreements, minutes of meetings, the Emission Reduction Program Idea Note (ERPIN), the Emission Reduction Program Document (ERPD), and REDD+ progress reports, were predominantly sourced from the FCPF website. Furthermore, materials such as the NRS and Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment (SESA) report and consultation meeting reports were also obtained from various online platforms.
The identification of these documents followed two main approaches. Firstly, a search was conducted using the Google search engine, employing keywords such as “stakeholders”, “participation”, “civil society organization (CSO) participation”, “private sector participation”, “forest-dependent people”, “REDD+”, and “REDD+ Laos.” Secondly, reports and the minutes of meetings (MOMs) were directly acquired from government agencies and related projects, including the REDD+ division under the Department of Forestry (DoF) and the F-REDD project at both national and sub-national levels.
It is noteworthy that information gathered from critical informant interviews was limited to corroborating the circumstances during the consultation meeting. The online interviews, conducted with government officials and representatives of CSOs, took place from March to April 2020.
In this study, we focused on the identification of deforestation and forest degradation consultation meetings under the Emission Reduction Project Document (ERPD), which incorporates various stakeholders’ perspectives. This study focuses on two key aspects of participation: 1. identifying the stakeholders involved in the consultation process at each level and 2. determining the extent of their role in the consultation at each level. Addressing the first aspect involves understanding the stakeholders in the consultation process. The presence of stakeholders in decision-making is crucial, as their absence may result in overlooking their concerns in the decision-making process [28]. Recognizing the interests of various stakeholder groups is essential, as it helps clarify why and how stakeholders engage or disengage at different stages in the policy process [29,30,31]. State stakeholders, as categorized by Boutthavong et al. [24], include both central government and local government entities, with a further breakdown into provincial and district government agencies to comprehend the involvement of state stakeholders at the local level. For non-state stakeholders, this study adopts the stakeholder identification framework from Brockhaus et al. [32], classifying them into five groups: multilateral and/or bilateral donors, international non-government organizations (INGOs), academic and/or research entities, civil organizations and/or domestic NGOs, private sector (business), and indigenous groups and/or local communities.
To address the second aspect, the roles of stakeholders at different levels were identified based on their primary responsibility in the consultation. Understanding their role is essential, as it clarifies how stakeholders contribute to the consultation process. The author discerned the roles through observations and referring to minutes from the consultation meetings.

3. Results

3.1. Participation of Stakeholders in the Consultation Process

3.1.1. Central Level

At the central level, MAF has designated specific officers from government-related agencies, mass organizations (MOs), and academic and research institutions (ARs) to collaborate in six technical working groups known as REDD+ TWGs. The DoF and DFRM assumed leadership roles within each TWG, serving as both organizers and participants. Invitations to participants were extended to government agencies across various sectors based on their mandates related to deforestation and forest degradation.
The inclusion of the MOD was deemed necessary due to the extensive coverage of forest areas, particularly protection and protected forest areas, extending to the boundary of the country. A summary of stakeholder participation in the central-level consultation is provided in Table 1.
In the REDD+ process, mass organizations such as the Lao Front for National Construction (LFNC) and Lao Women’s Union (LWU) collaborate closely with the Lao government, particularly in leading the social and environment safeguards TWG, one of six REDD+ technical working groups dedicated to addressing safeguard and stakeholder participation issues [16]. The close ties between the political ruling party in Laos and the mass organizations are evident, as their organizational structures span from the upper echelons of the party hierarchy down to the village level, facilitating information dissemination and operations scalability [37,38]. Thus, mass organizations are categorized as semi-state stakeholders.
Academic and research institutions bear the responsibility of researching REDD+-related issues. The National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI) under the MAF leads the technical working group on land tenure and land use. Additionally, the National University of Laos (NUOL) under the Ministry of Education and Sports (MES) participates in various REDD+ TWGs addressing safeguard, REL/MRV, and benefit-sharing issues. Academic and research institutions are under the control of the government; thus, in this paper, academic and research institutions are classified as semi-state stakeholders.
Apart from government agencies, development partners (DP) have implemented projects in Laos, including those that have been related to REDD+ for decades [39,40]. Projects such as the FCPF REDD+ Readiness Project, supported by the World Bank; the Climate Protection through Avoided Deforestation (CliPAD) Project, funded by GIZ and BMZ; the Sustainable Forest Management and REDD+ Support Project (F-REDD) of JICA; and the UN-REDD program-funded Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) contribute technical expertise to essential document formulation, such as the national REDD+ strategy, benefit-sharing, and the Emission Reduction Program Document. Consultants from these DPs are actively involved in the six REDD+ TWGs, supporting specific technical aspects such as NRS, REL/MRV, safeguards, and benefit-sharing.
Seventeen CSOs, both international and local, were invited by the DoF to participate in a dedicated consultation on the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, along with the potential solutions identified at the central level. Twelve out of the seventeen invited organizations are members of the Lao CSO FLEGT network [41], one is a member of the Lao CSO network, and four are international CSOs, predominantly based in Vientiane capital. These CSOs, operating as non-profit organizations, focus on various areas, including forestry, agriculture, land issues, education, human rights, gender, and rural development. However, some invited CSOs did not participate due to a lack of information, short notice, and less interest. Lack of information stemmed from CSOs not having received previous invitations to REDD+ meetings, and the short notice was attributed to the delivery of invitation letters one day before the consultation, hindering adequate preparation, particularly for CSOs with offices in other provinces. Some CSOs expressed less interest in REDD+ due to a perceived lack of clear benefits, highlighting the inadequate distribution of information among CSOs.
Sixteen INGOs were also invited by the DoF to participate in the same consultation meeting as the CSOs. INGOs with projects in wildlife conservation, rural development, forest community, and education on forest management, such as the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), Foundation of Netherlands Volunteers (SNV), Regional Community Forestry Training Center (RECOFTC), and IUCN, actively participated. However, other invited INGOs working in areas such as water, food, climate, education, jobs, private-sector development, governance, gender and social equity, agriculture, and human development did not participate.
In the realm of the private sector, twenty-four companies received invitations from the DoF to partake in a separate consultation, focusing on the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. These companies engage in activities such as hydropower construction, road construction, electric line installment, renewable energy, tree plantation, and wood processing factories. Some invited companies did not participate in the consultation meeting.

3.1.2. Provincial Level

At the province level, CGAs, ARs, and MOs delivered a one-day on-the-job training session for provincial government agencies (PGAs) and organized the consultation meetings. The officers from the Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office (PAFO), the Provincial Office of Natural Resources and Environment (PoNRE), and the Provincial Department of Planning and Investment (PDPI) underwent the training. The training aims to enhance the capacity of the provincial officers to be greater facilitators and enable them to handle whole consultation meetings in the district consultation meetings. The DP played a supportive role in facilitating the organization of these events.
The CGA responsible for forest matters, including the DoF, DoFI, and DaLaM under MAF, as well as the DFRM under MoNRE, along with non-forest-related agencies like the DOP under MPI, were designated to lead the continuation of consultations at the province level. The mandate of the DOP is particularly vital in coordinating and collecting information on various development projects, such as infrastructure construction, hydropower dam construction, electricity line installation, and land concessions. The summary of stakeholder participation in the provincial-level consultation is presented in Table 2, demonstrating the full involvement of all invited stakeholders in the process.
The PAFO played a role in coordinating and extending invitations to participants from diverse sectoral government entities at the provincial level, following directives from CGA [42]. Guided by the recommendations of DoF, PAFO selectively invited organizations deemed pertinent to deforestation and forest degradation concerns.

3.1.3. District Level

PGA took initiative in delivering on-the-job training to district government agencies (DGAs) and facilitating the subsequent consultation meeting. Acting as organizers, PGAs, CGAs, DPs, ARs, and MOs actively participated in these events. The stakeholder participation at the district level is comprehensively summarized in Table 3.
The District Agriculture and Forestry Office (DAFO) assumed the role of coordinating and issuing invitations to participants from DGAs holding mandates related to drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. This selection was guided by the advisory from the PAFO, with the DAFO attending as a representative for agriculture- and forestry-related matters.
Notably, all vice district governors within the provinces are enlisted in the Provincial REDD+ Task Force (PRTF) as members responsible for reporting on issues and progress related to REDD+ implementation from district government agencies (DGAs). Consequently, beyond the engagement of forestry and environment ministries, REDD+ is acknowledged and endorsed by sectors beyond the environmental and forestry domains, encompassing areas such as infrastructure, energy, and mining within the Lao context. In the context of consultation, MAF and MoNRE, serving as the organizers, extended an invitation to government agencies from central, provincial, and district levels, regardless of their direct connection to forestry and environmental concerns, fostering broader discussions on issues pertaining to deforestation and forest degradation.

3.1.4. Village Level

DGAs took on the role of organizers and conducted the consultation meeting at the village level. In order to ensure the coherence and accuracy of the discussions, the participation of PGAs, CGAs, DPs, ARs, and MOs were sought, with the overarching goal of providing technical support. The comprehensive summary of stakeholder participation in the village-level consultation is presented in Table 4, with the noteworthy observation that all the invited stakeholders actively took part in the proceedings.
As per the ERPD [16], the consultations were executed within village clusters [43] at the village level. Invitations were extended to representatives from all selected villages to participate in these consultations organized within the village clusters. The selection of village clusters was carried out during the district-level consultations, considering their relevance to the high rate of deforestation and forest degradation. Notably, these consultations were conducted across 50 village clusters, involving representatives from 339 villages. The village representatives primarily consisted of village authorities, including village heads, village head clusters, and representatives from village elders’ unions, village military, village women’s unions, village youth unions, and village foresters.

3.2. Role of Stakeholder Group in the Consultation

The roles of stakeholders were categorized into two main aspects: organizers and participants. Organizers, in turn, were classified into three distinct roles, namely, the organizer of the consultation meeting (OC), those supporting the preparation and execution of the consultation (SP), and those involved in providing an on-the-job training (PT). On the other hand, participants played a pivotal role in sharing opinions and making decisions (SM). A comprehensive summary of stakeholder roles at each level in the consultation process is provided (Table 5, Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8).

3.2.1. Central Level

Table 5 illustrates the role of stakeholders at the central level. The DoF under the MAF and the DFRM under the MoNRE played an essential role in the consultation process by actively participating at various levels with distinct responsibilities, specifically assuming the roles of OC and SM in the consultation for CGAs at the central level. Other CGAs took on the role of SM. The DoF extended invitations to relevant CGAs associated with the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, including the DoFI and the DALaM under the MAF, and the DOP under the MPI, the MoEM, the MPWT, the MoJ, the MOF, and the MOD. While the MoJ and the MoF were not directly linked to the drivers, they contributed to the legislative and financial aspects of the REDD+ process, respectively. Involvement of the MOD was driven by the fact that many military sites are situated in forest areas, particularly near country borders.
Moreover, MOs and ARs were incorporated into the six technical working groups, serving as the OC and the SM. REDD+ was acknowledged as being a relatively new concept to the stakeholders. The DP, possessing expertise in REDD+ and maintaining positive relationships with the government, especially in the forest sector, played a crucial role. Their responsibilities included PT to certain central government officials employed in the implementation team for provincial consultation, namely, the DoF, the DFRM, the DoFI, the DOP, and MOs and ARs. Additionally, they supported the preparation and execution of the consultation (SP). Non-state stakeholders such as INGOs, CSOs, and PSs assumed the role of SM. Their responsibility was to share opinions and experiences from their work during discussion sessions in the consultation meetings and ultimately provide final consent for the outcome of these discussions.

3.2.2. Provincial Level

The provincial consultation implementation team, comprising entities such as the DoF, the DoFI, the DFRM, the DOP, MOs, and ARs, assumed the roles of OC and PT. This team delivered on-the-job training to provincial government officials appointed to the provincial implementation team, including the PAFO, the PoNRE, and the PDPI. DPs such as WB, KfW and GIZ, and JICA played the key role of SP, thereby providing support to the provincial consultation implementation team.
PGAs took on the role of SM. Invitations were extended to agencies with mandates linked to the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. The specific roles of each participant are summarized in Table 6.

3.2.3. District Level

The provincial implementation team took on the roles of OC and PT. The district implementation unit, consisting of the DAFO, the DoNRE, and the DPO, received on-the-job training. Additionally, the provincial consultation implementation team, along with the DP, played the role of SP.
District government agencies have a role as SM. The agencies that have mandates related to deforestation and forest degradation were invited to the consultation and discussed the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation occurring in their districts. DGA selected target village clusters for consultation meetings at the village level. Table 7 provides an overview of the responsibilities of stakeholders during the district-level consultation.

3.2.4. Village Level

The district implementation unit played the role of OC. The provincial implementation team and the DP assumed the role of SP.
The village cluster and the village authorities of the targeted village clusters played the role of SM. They were invited to participate and discuss the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation from their perspective (Table 8).

4. Discussion

4.1. Participation of Stakeholders in the Consultation Process

We discovered that the series of consultation processes has positive effects on participation, encompassing (1) multi-stakeholder participation, including non-state stakeholders; (2) cross-sectoral coordination extending to the non-forestry sector; (3) vertical administration coordination among government agencies; (4) effective support from development partners; and (5) ensuring minority participation.
Regarding (1), our observation underscores the Lao government’s proactive efforts to engage a diverse array of stakeholders, including non-state stakeholders such as INGOs, private companies, CSOs, and local communities, in the consultation meetings. This inclusive approach signifies a recognition of the multifaceted dimensions of the issues at hand. The involvement of INGOs operating in the forestry sectors such as the WWF, the WCS, the SNV, and the RECOFTC brings a wealth of knowledge from implementing related REDD+ projects, thus facilitating technical discussions and drawing upon practical experiences [44]. Companies that convened for the meeting, such as the Burapha agro-forestry company, were able to participate due to their longstanding relationships with the forest sector within the government, which allows them to easily access information from government sectors. The involvement of CSOs in the meetings is characterized by their active engagement in implementing initiatives that integrate local government agencies and communities. Their participation goes beyond mere attendance; CSOs play a vital role in initiating and fostering trust among local government and communities. This dynamic interaction enhances the quality of discussions and promotes a collaborative atmosphere [45]. Local communities at the village level, recognized as key contributors to deforestation and forest degradation due to their land use practices, were included in the consultation process. By including participants from local communities, the meetings could provide not only insights into the drivers’ issues but also future REDD+ implementation activities from the ground level.
Regarding (2), we found that the involvement of cross-sector ministries associated with the identified drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in the series of meetings holds the potential to strengthen the position of REDD+. REDD+ must extend its involvement beyond direct causes, encompassing issues like agricultural land expansion, mining, hydropower development, and industrial tree plantation [46]. Equally, it should consider the underlying causes, including population growth, weak law enforcement, and market demand forces. Greater coordination between various ministries is being promoted to ensure broader recognition of REDD+ as well as tackle various issues mentioned above. The collaborative engagement of different ministries can contribute to a more holistic and integrated approach, fostering a synergistic response to the complex challenges posed by deforestation and forest degradation in the Lao context.
Regarding (3), vertical administration plays a pivotal role in fostering effective coordination and information dissemination among key stakeholders such as the DoF, the PAFO, and the DAFO. The vertical administration model entails a structured flow of information from the central level to the provincial, district, and village levels, thereby streamlining the consultation process. By engaging provincial and district government agencies in these discussions, the Lao government endeavors to bolster decentralization efforts, particularly within the forestry sector [47]. This hierarchical structure not only empowers local agencies but also reinforces their capacity through targeted training initiatives, as highlighted in the research findings.
Regarding (4), development partners played a crucial role in the consultations across all levels. With decades of experience in forestry, including REDD+ projects, they brought invaluable insights and practical knowledge to the consultation meetings [39,40]. For instance, the CLiPAD project within GIZ provided technical support and conducted a five-year pilot of performance-based payments within their REDD+ program, which is the first project that attempted to apply a performance-based payment scheme. This hands-on experience positions them as key stakeholders with deep expertise in REDD+ implementation. The active participation of these development partners at all levels of the consultation process facilitated coherence and seamless implementation. Their presence ensured that each level benefited from their specialized knowledge and insights, contributing to the effectiveness of the consultation process.
Regarding (5), the engagement of ethnic groups holds paramount significance for meeting the safeguard requirements mandated by the donor [48]. This deliberate inclusion of ethnic minority representatives in the safeguard TWG underscores the government commitment to promoting inclusivity and addressing the unique needs and challenges faced by marginalized groups.
While the series of consultation processes yielded positive effects on participation, as mentioned above, our research uncovered significant limitations in stakeholder participation as well. These include (6) the restricted variety of non-state stakeholders, (7) inadequate cross-sectoral coordination by the government, and (8) a heavy reliance on external stakeholders.
Regarding (6), the consultation meetings applied an invitation-based approach for non-state stakeholders, which led to limited participation, particularly for INGO fields related to agriculture and rural development, which are the underlying cause of deforestation. The government focuses on INGO fields related to forestry and environmental issues, potentially narrowing the spectrum of perspectives on the underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation. Furthermore, the selection process for private sector representation was limited to major companies primarily based in Vientiane capital, further restricting the inclusivity of the process. Private-sector entities without offices in Vientiane missed the chance to join the consultations. In addition, the lack of advanced notice further hindered their participation, as they were not adequately informed in advance. Additionally, the lack of understanding of REDD+ within the private sector, coupled with perceptions of its greater benefit to political actors and consultants, deterred their engagement [49], resulting in decreased participation. Moreover, the limited inclusivity extended to village-level consultations, where only villagers in prominent positions were invited to participate, excluding ordinary villagers from expressing their perspectives. This oversight neglected the diverse interests and viewpoints within village communities [50], highlighting the absence of a systematic approach to identify and engage various groups.
Regarding (7), although the consultation meetings of REDD+ in Laos have attempted to foster cross-sectoral coordination among several government agencies, the actual implementation of such coordination encounters challenges. Despite the recognition of direct forest and environment-related ministries such as the MAF and the MoNRE, REDD+ remains less acknowledged by non-forest and non-environment-related ministries in Laos. This lack of recognition is compounded by the fact that non-forest and non-environment-related ministries have developed their own regulations and master plans without adequately considering the objectives and processes of REDD+. This disjointed approach may pose additional hurdles to the effective implementation of REDD+ and the addressing of underlying drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. The overlapping regulations and plans in developing countries pose a significant challenge to the implementation of REDD+ initiatives [51]. Non-forest and non-environment-related ministries often attend meetings and consultation sessions without actively incorporating REDD+ components into their own ministries. This passive involvement may hinder the integration of REDD+ objectives into broader government policies and initiatives, thus limiting the potential impact of REDD+ efforts on mitigating deforestation and promoting sustainable forest management. These inadequate cross-sectoral coordination issues are faced in other REDD+ countries [51].
Regarding (8), the active involvement of development partners in the consultation process underscores the high reliance of the Lao government on external support for the preparation and organization of these meetings. While this collaboration may facilitate the smoother implementation of consultations, it also highlights the dependence of the government on outside expertise for analyzing, planning, and implementing REDD+ initiatives. This continued reliance on development partners may compromise the autonomy of the government, a concern often voiced in developing countries [52,53,54,55]. However, it is important to note that the support provided by development partners is typically limited to certain phases of the implementation process and cannot continue indefinitely. Therefore, there is a pressing need for the Lao government to develop its capacity to fully implement REDD+ initiatives on its own.
REDD+ consultation meetings have attempted to involve various stakeholders, and multi-stakeholder meetings have been carried out. We recognized that the attendance of non-state stakeholders is only a formality for the organizer side. As a result, the participation of INGOs and private organizations/companies not directly involved in forestry was limited. This can be attributed to a lack of publicity and delays in sending invitations to the various organizations and companies.
However, considering the characteristics of REDD+, the agricultural sector, which is not directly involved in forests, is expected to have a significant impact on deforestation through land use change. This presents a major weakness in the evaluation of the consultation meetings.
In addition, at the village level, there is a tendency to be biased toward the opinions of representatives such as village heads and influential people in the village. Certainly, the opinions of village representatives are considered to be in the public interest of the village as a whole. However, minorities in the village, especially the poor, are more dependent on the forest for their livelihood [56], and not fully understanding the opinions of these minorities can lead to an inadequate assessment of the impact on the forest. This is another major weakness of the consultation meetings.
The intentions of the organizers of the consultation meetings might be to meet the requirements of the donors and to draft a report including various participants of non-state stakeholders, such as CSOs, some private sectors, some INGOs, and local communities that formally participated in the consultation. It can be concluded that their participation is not considered important in terms of the organizer side because their invitation is just to cover requests from the FCPF/World Bank. Moreover, government agencies did not provide sufficient consideration to the participation of non-governmental organizations.

4.2. The Roles of Stakeholders in the Consultation Process

The research highlights a positive aspect of the role of stakeholders in the series of consultation meetings, notably, (1) the pivotal roles played by the central stakeholders and ARs. Central stakeholders, including the assigned team comprising representatives from CGAs, MOs, ARs, and DPs, assumed significant role at the district and village levels. ARs such as NUOL and NAFRI leveraged their extensive research expertise to design REDD+ elements [52]. Their involvement as SP in consultation meetings, particularly at the local level, was instrumental. They collaborated with the organizing team to facilitate group discussions and ensure a seamless consultation process across the provincial, district, and village levels. This active engagement played a vital role in fostering effective group discussions and providing realistic technical information to participants, ultimately facilitating informed decision-making and consensus-building at the local level.
This finding, however, also reveals some negative aspects of the stakeholders’ role in the series of consultation meetings, such as (2) a high reliance on external stakeholders, (3) undermining the role of CSOs, (4) limited capacity of local government agencies in the OC role, and (5) a limited understanding of non-state stakeholders resulting ino a limited role in the consultation meetings.
Regarding (2), the series of these consultation processes revealed several limitations in government ownership. Notably, the initiatives have been primarily driven by central forest and environmental agencies, heavily supported by development partners. This reliance on external support, evident across all levels of consultation, underscores a significant issue: Central government agencies may lack the necessary knowledge, technology, or experience to manage these consultation meetings independently. This dependency on development partners for organizational support has become increasingly pervasive, raising concerns about the true ownership of the process by the recipient country. According to Brolin [53] and Dornan [54], such extensive involvement of external actors can potentially undermine the autonomy and self-reliance of the host country. The implications of this dynamic are multifaceted. First, the overreliance on external support can lead to a lack of capacity building within central government agencies. Without the opportunity to develop and hone their skills, these agencies may continue to depend on external expertise, creating a cycle of dependency. Second, the perception of ownership and legitimacy may be affected. When consultation processes are predominantly driven by external partners, stakeholders within the country may view the initiatives as externally imposed rather than locally owned. This perception can affect the buy-in and cooperation from local communities and stakeholders, which are crucial for the success of environmental initiatives. Moreover, the strategic priorities and agendas of development partners may not always align perfectly with those of the recipient country. This misalignment can lead to initiatives that do not fully address the specific needs and contexts of the local environment and communities.
Regarding (3), our findings underscore significant challenges related to the participation of civil society organizations (CSOs), particularly those addressing ethnic and gender issues, in the context of REDD+ initiatives in Laos. Despite their active presence and critical grassroots engagement, many CSOs faced barriers to meaningful participation in consultation meetings. Key obstacles included the short notice given for these meetings, which hindered their ability to prepare and attend, and a lack of comprehensive understanding of REDD+ processes and objectives. In stark contrast, mass organizations such as the Lao Women’s Union (LWU) and the Lao Front for National Construction (LFNC) were not only participants but also served as organizers of these consultations. Their involvement was largely due to their perceived reliability and historical alignment with government policies and objectives. This governmental preference underscores a systemic bias favoring established, government-aligned organizations, potentially at the expense of more diverse and critical voices. The exclusion of CSOs, particularly those focusing on ethnic and gender issues, from organizational roles and decision-making processes poses a significant risk to the inclusivity and effectiveness of REDD+ initiatives. Ethnic groups and women often experience the impacts of environmental and climate policies differently and more acutely, making their perspectives invaluable for the creation of equitable and effective strategies. To rectify this imbalance and ensure the inclusion of diverse voices, it is imperative to create greater space and representation for CSOs in both participatory and organizational roles. This could involve extending invitations well in advance, providing capacity-building initiatives to enhance understanding of REDD+, and actively seeking the input and leadership of CSOs in the planning and execution of consultations. Ensuring that these organizations have a seat at the table will not only enrich the dialogue but also enhance the legitimacy and effectiveness of REDD+ strategies in Laos.
Regarding (4), provinces such as Louangprabang and Houaphan have demonstrated greater proficiency and experience in the implementation of REDD+ pilot projects, showcasing their ability to effectively manage and execute these initiatives. In contrast, provinces like Sayaboury, Oudomxay, Loungnamtha, and Bokeo exhibit more limited capacity [35,36], which can significantly impede the quality and effectiveness of consultation meetings. This limitation is particularly concerning given that these provinces and districts are expected to serve as the OC at the local level, a role that requires substantial technical and managerial competence. This disparity in capacity highlights the importance of not just initial training sessions but also ongoing, intensive capacity-building initiatives. These initiatives are essential to empowering local government agencies, equipping them with the skills and knowledge necessary to manage REDD+ projects independently. Strengthening local capacity will reduce their reliance on central-level technical support, fostering a more sustainable and autonomous implementation of REDD+ projects. Such efforts should be tailored to address the specific needs and challenges of less experienced provinces, ensuring a more uniform standard of competence and readiness across all regions involved in REDD+ initiatives. This targeted approach to capacity building will be instrumental in achieving the broader goals of REDD+, including effective forest conservation, carbon emission reduction, and sustainable development.
Regarding (5), the limited understanding of REDD+ among non-state stakeholders poses a significant challenge to their role in consultation meetings. REDD+ is a complex international framework aimed at combating climate change through forest conservation. Given the technical nature and multifaceted aspects of REDD+, many non-state stakeholders, such as local communities, NGOs, and private-sector entities, often lack a thorough understanding of its mechanisms, objectives, and potential impacts. This knowledge gap hinders their ability to contribute meaningfully to discussions, potentially marginalizing their voices and perspectives. To address this issue, targeted training sessions are essential. These sessions should be designed to enhance the comprehension of REDD+ among non-state stakeholders, thereby encouraging their meaningful engagement in discussions. The training programs should cover the basic principles of REDD+, its implementation strategies, benefits, and the roles that various stakeholders can play. Additionally, they should address the socio-economic and environmental implications of REDD+ projects, ensuring that stakeholders are well-informed about the potential outcomes of these initiatives. A series of tailored training programs could be instrumental in increasing participation and fostering informed discussions during consultation meetings. Such programs should be inclusive, participatory, and adapted to the specific needs and contexts of different stakeholder groups. For example, training for local communities might focus on the practical implications of REDD+ for their livelihoods and land rights, while sessions for private sector representatives could emphasize the business opportunities and regulatory requirements associated with REDD+ projects. Furthermore, these training programs should not be one-off events but rather part of a continuous capacity-building process. Regular follow-up sessions, refresher courses, and the establishment of knowledge-sharing platforms can help sustain stakeholder engagement and ensure that their understanding of REDD+ evolves alongside the framework itself. By investing in the education and empowerment of non-state stakeholders, it is possible to create a more inclusive and effective consultation process, ultimately leading to more successful and equitable REDD+ implementation.
The research underscores the dual nature of stakeholder roles in REDD+ consultation meetings in Laos. It highlights positive contributions by central stakeholders and ARs in facilitating informed decision-making at local levels. However, significant challenges include a heavy reliance on external stakeholders, which risks undermining local ownership and capacity building within government agencies. CSOs, especially those addressing ethnic and gender issues, face barriers such as short notice for meetings and limited understanding of REDD+ processes, potentially sidelining critical perspectives. Moreover, disparities in capacity among provinces and districts hinder the quality of consultations, as some areas lack sufficient technical competence to effectively manage REDD+ initiatives independently. Furthermore, many non-state stakeholders lack a thorough understanding of REDD+, limiting their meaningful engagement in discussions. Addressing these challenges requires enhancing local capacity, improving inclusivity, and providing targeted training to foster more effective and equitable participation in REDD+ consultations across all levels in Laos.

5. Conclusions

This paper addresses the participation of different stakeholders in REDD+ in Laos funded by the World Bank, focusing on analyzing government consultation processes to identify drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. Our study revealed a significant presence of cross-sectoral stakeholders from both forestry and non-forestry ministries, indicating potential for gathering diverse opinions and fostering cross-sectoral coordination. However, central government agencies and development partners dominated stakeholder participation, potentially influenced by government ownership. Non-state stakeholders, though invited to the consultation meetings, had limited participation, highlighting the need for greater emphasis on their roles to ensure the integration of diverse interests and views in REDD+ initiatives.
It is imperative for governments to prioritize capacity building for provincial and district officials, particularly those with limited experience in implementing REDD+ activities. Additionally, enhancing the knowledge and involvement of non-state stakeholders, including the private sector and local communities, can bolster their contributions to REDD+ implementation. By providing adequate support and incentivizing participation, stakeholders at all levels can be empowered to play active roles in advancing REDD+ goals. This transition poses challenges, particularly concerning how the government will navigate the implementation process effectively and ensure its long-term success. Balancing the need for external support with the imperative of building national capacity is essential to sustainably advancing REDD+ efforts in Lao PDR.
Moving forward, our findings emphasize the importance of further research to evaluate the varied perspectives of stakeholders in the national policy-making process. Moreover, while our study focused on participation during the readiness phase, future considerations should extend to participation in implementation, including monitoring of social agreements, safeguards, and community benefit-sharing mechanisms. By continuously addressing these aspects, we can foster more inclusive and effective REDD+ initiatives to combat deforestation and promote sustainable forest management on a global scale.

Author Contributions

S.S. designed the research, collected and analyzed the data, and wrote this paper. K.H. designed the research and supported the data analysis. T.F. supported the data analysis. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by a long-term training program with the JICA: SDG Global Leader program.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank officers in the REDD+ division under the Department of Forestry of Laos, who provided essential internal documents for the research analysis, and an officer of one CSO, who provided their valuable time by answering questions via email and interview.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Achard, F.; Beuchle, R.; Mayaux, P.; Stibig, H.J.; Bodart, C.; Brink, A.; Carboni, S.; Desclee, B.; Donnay, F.; Eva, D.H.; et al. Determination of Tropical Deforestation Rates and related Carbon Losses from 1990 to 2010. Glob. Change Biol. 2014, 20, 2540–2554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Satyal, P.; Corbera, E.; Dawson, N.; Dhungana, H.; Maskey, G. Representation and participation in formulating Nepal’s REDD+ approach. Clim. Policy 2019, 19 (Suppl. S1), S8–S22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Anglsen, A.; Brockhaus, M.; Sunderlin, W.D.; Verchot, L.V. (Eds.) Analyzing REDD+: Challenges and Choices; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Bogor, Indonesia, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Corbera, E.; Schroeder, H. Governing and implementing REDD+. Environ. Sci. Policy 2011, 14, 89–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lederer, M. REDD+ Governance. WIREs Clim. Chang. 2012, 3, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Corbera, E. Problematizing REDD+ as an experiment in payments for ecosystem services. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2012, 4, 612–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Corbera, E.; Estrada, M.; May, P.; Navarro, G.; Pacheco, P. Rights to land, forests and carbon in REDD+: Insights from Mexico, Brazil and Costa Rica. Forests 2011, 2, 301–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Forsyth, T. Multilevel, multi-actor governance in REDD. In Realising REDD+: National Strategy and Policy Options; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Bogor, Indonesia, 2009; Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep02109.14.pdf (accessed on 24 June 2021).
  9. Mustalahti, I.; Bolin, A.; Boyd, E.; Paavola, J. Can REDD+ reconcile local priorities and needs with global mitigation benefits? Lessons from Angai Forest, Tanzania. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Thompson, M.C.; Baruah, M.; Carr, E.R. Seeing REDD+ as a project of environmental governance. Environ. Sci. Policy 2011, 14, 100–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. JICA. PAREDD-Participatory Land and Forest Management Project for Reducing Deforestation in Lao PDR: Working Together with Communities to Reduce Deforestation; JICA: Vientiane, Laos, 2014.
  12. GIZ. Climate Protection through Avoided Deforestation (CliPAD): Getting Laos Ready for REDD+; GIZ: Vientiane, Laos, 2019. Available online: https://www.giz.de/en/downloads/CliPAD-Factsheet-1.pdf (accessed on 10 December 2021).
  13. World Bank. Lao PDR: Scaling-Up Participatory Sustainable Forest Management Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Executive Summary; World Bank Document; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  14. Dwyer, M.B.; Ingalls, M. REDD+ at the Crossroads: Choices and Tradeoffs for 2015–2020 in Laos; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Bogor, Indonesia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  15. Lestrelin, G.; Trockenbrodt, M.; Phanvilay, K.; Thongmanivong, S.; Vongvisouk, T.; Pham Thu, T.; Castella, J.C. The Context of REDD+ in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic: Drivers, Agents and Institutions; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Bogor, Indonesia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  16. Government of Laos. Emission Reductions Program Document (ERPD): Promoting REDD+ through Governance, Forest Landscapes and Livelihoods in Northern Lao PDR; Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF): Vientiane, Laos, 2018; Available online: https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/system/files/documents/LaoPDR_ERPD_FinalDraftMay.2018-Clean.pdf (accessed on 11 December 2021).
  17. Government of Laos. National REDD+ Strategy of Lao People’s Democratic Republic; Department of Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry: Vientiane, Laos, 2021.
  18. Pham, T.T.; Ngo, H.C.; Dao, T.L.C.; Hoang, T.L.; Moeliono, M. Participation and influence of REDD+ actors in Vietnam, 2011–2019. Glob. Environ. Change 2021, 68, 102249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sunderlin, W.D.; De Sassi, C.; Ekaputri, A.D.; Light, M.; Pratama, C.D. REDD+ Contribution to Well-Being and Income Is Marginal: The Perspective of Local Stakeholders. Forests 2017, 8, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chorito, A.B.; Assefa, E. Actors participation and power relations of REDD+ implementation in Bale Eco Region, Ethiopia. Climate Policy. Clim. Policy 2024, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Schmitt, C.B.; Mukungu, J. How to Achieve Effective Participation of Communities in the Monitoring of REDD+ Projects: A Case Study in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Forests 2019, 10, 794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gupta, H. Understanding Stakeholders’ Perspective on REDD+ Implementation as a Multi-Sectoral Approach. In Climate Change, Food Security and Natural Resource Management; Behnassi, M., Pollmann, O., Gupta, H., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Milbank, C.; Coomes, D.; Vira, B. Assessing the Progress of REDD+ Projects towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Forests 2018, 9, 589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Boutthavong, S.; Hyakumura, K.; Ehara, M. Stakeholder Participation in REDD+ Readiness Activities for Three Collaborative Projects in Lao PDR. Forests 2017, 8, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Fujisaki, T.; Hyakumura, K.; Scheyvens, H.; Cadman, T. Does REDD+ ensure sectoral coordination and stakeholder participation? A comparative analysis of REDD+ national governance structures in countries of Asia-Pacific region. Forests 2016, 7, 195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cole, R.; Wong, G.; Brockhaus, M.; Moeliono, M.; Kallio, M. Objectives, ownership and engagement in Lao PDR’s REDD+ policy landscape. Geoforum 2017, 83, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mustalahti, I.; Cramm, M.; Ramcilovic-Suominen, S.; Tegegne, Y.T. Resources and rules of the game: Participation of civil society in REDD+ and FLEGT-VPA processes in Lao PDR. Forests 2017, 8, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Philipps, A. The Politics of Presence: The Political Representation of Gender, Ethnicy, and Race; Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK, 1998; Available online: https://books.google.co.id/books/about/The_Politics_of_Presence.html?id=K2A9AwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y (accessed on 4 January 2022).
  29. Cornwall, A. Unpacking ‘Participation’: Models, meanings and practices. Community Dev. J. 2008, 43, 269–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. White, S.C. Depoliticising development: The uses and abuses of participation. Dev. Pract. 1996, 6, 6–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Black-Hawkins, K. The framework for participation: A research tool for exploring the relationship between achievement and inclusion in schools. Int. J. Res. Method Educ. 2010, 33, 21–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Brockhaus, M.; Di Gregorio, M.; Mardiah, S. Governing the design of national REDD+: An analysis of the power of agency. For. Policy Econ. 2014, 49, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Government of Laos. Strategy Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report; GIZ: Vientiane, Laos, 2019.
  34. REDD+ Division. Report of Provincial Consultation on PRAP in Houaphan Province; REDD+ Division, Department of Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry: Vientiane, Laos, 2016.
  35. REDD+ Division. Report of Provincial Consultation on PRAP in Louangnamtha Province; REDD+ Division, Department of Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry: Vientiane, Laos, 2017.
  36. REDD+ Division. Report of District and Cluster Village Consultation on PRAP in Sayabury Province; REDD+ Division, Department of Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry: Vientiane, Laos, 2017.
  37. Stuart-Fox, M. The political culture of corruption in the Lao PDR. Asian Stud. Rev. 2006, 30, 59–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Barney, K.; Kerstin, C. Lao PDR: Overview of Forest Governance, Markets and Trade; Forest Trends, 2011. Available online: https://www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/baseline_study_laos_report_en.pdf (accessed on 22 March 2022).
  39. Lestrelin, G.; Castella, J.C.; Bourgoin, J. Territorialising sustainable development: The politics of land-use planning in Laos. J. Contemp. Asia 2012, 42, 581–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Broegaard, R.B.; Vongvisouk, T.; Mertz, O. Contradictory land use plans and policies in Laos: Tenure security and the threat of exclusion. World Dev. 2017, 89, 170–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lao Civil Society Organizations Website. Home–Lao Civil Society. Available online: https://laocso.org/ (accessed on 24 November 2021).
  42. Yamada, N. Legitimation of the Lao people’s revolutionary party: Socialism, Chintanakan Mai (new thinking) and reform. J. Contemp. Asia 2018, 48, 717–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. FAO; MRLG. Challenges and Opportunities of Recognizing and Protecting Customary Tenure Systems in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic; FAO: Bangkok, Thailand, 2019; 12p. [Google Scholar]
  44. Simonet, G.; Karsenty, A.; de Perthuis, C.; Newton, P.; Schaap, B.; Seyller, C. REDD+ projects in 2014: An overview based on a new database and typology. Inf. Debate Ser. 2015, 32, 2. [Google Scholar]
  45. Kusters, K.; De Graaf, M.; Buck, L.; Galido, K.; Maindo, A.; Mendoza, H.; Nghi, T.H.; Purwanto, E.; Zagt, R. Inclusive Landscape Governance for Sustainable Development: Assessment Methodology and Lessons for Civil Society Organizations. Land 2020, 9, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kissinger, G.M.; Herold, M.; De Sy, V. Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation: A Synthesis Report for REDD+ Policymakers; Lexeme Consulting: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  47. Pham, T.; Di Gregorio, M.; Carmenta, R.; Brockhaus, M.; Le, D. The REDD+ Policy Arena in Vietnam: Participation of Policy Actors. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Government of Laos. Readiness Package Self-Assessment Report: Readiness for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+); FCPF: Vientiane, Laos, 2018; Available online: https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/system/files/documents/Lao%20PDR%20FCPF%20Program%20R-Package%20Final%20Submission%2013Feb2018_1.pdf (accessed on 24 November 2021).
  49. Ramcilovik-Suominen, S. REDD+ as a tool for state territorialization: Managing forests and people in Laos. J. Political Ecol. 2019, 26, 264–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mosse, D. Authority, gender and knowledge: Theoretical reflections on the practice of participatory rural appraisal. Dev. Chang. 1994, 25, 497–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Korhonen-Kurki, K.; Brockhaus, M.; Bushley, B.; Babon, A.; Gebara, M.F.; Kengoum, F.; Pham, T.T.; Rantala, S.; Moeliono, M.; Dwisatrio, B.; et al. Coordination and cross-sectoral integration in REDD+: Experiences from seven countries. Clim. Dev. 2016, 8, 458–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Fujisaki, T. Lao PDR REDD+ Readiness-State of Play; Institute for Global Environmental: Hayama, Japan, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  53. Brolin, T. Ownership and Results in Swedish General Budget Support to Mozambique. Forum Dev. Stud. 2017, 44, 377–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Dornan, M. How new is the“ new” conditionality? Recipient perspectives on aid, country ownership and policy reform. Dev. Policy Rev. 2017, 35, 46–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Abrahamsen, R. The power of partnerships in global governance. Third World Q. 2004, 25, 1453–1467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Vedeld, P.; Angelsen, A.; Bojö, J.; Sjaastad, E.; Berg, G.K. Forest environmental incomes and the rural poor. For. Policy Econ. 2007, 9, 869–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Stakeholder participation in the central-level consultation.
Table 1. Stakeholder participation in the central-level consultation.
Stakeholder GroupsName of Organizations
OrganizerInvited and ParticipatedInvited but Did Not Participate
State
stakeholder		CGAMAF (DoF), MoNRE (DFRM)MAF (DoF, DoFI, DALaM), MoNRE (DFRM), MPI (DOP), MoJ (LD), MOF (DEFD), MoEM (DOE, DOM), MPWT (DOR), MOD
Semi-state stakeholderMOLWU, LFNCLWU, LFNC
ARNUOL, NAFRINUOL, NAFRI
Non-state stakeholderDPWB, KfW and GIZ, JICA, UN-REDD/FAO
INGOs WWF, WCS, SNV, RECOFTC, IUCNWR, INGO Network, CARE, Helvetas Laos, AGRISUD international, GRET, and others
CSOs International: VFIL
Local: GCA		International: MRLG
Local: CAMKID, CKSA, MHP, GCDA, GDA, LNRA, RRDPA, WCA, LBA, and others
PS Burapha agro-forestry company, LNCC, LFAHongsa Power Company, MMG mining company, PKK Lao Furniture Factory Ltd., Österreichische Bundesforste AG, Carbon Bridge, and other companies
Stakeholder groups: CGA = central government agency, MO = Mass organization, AR = academic/research institution, DP = development partner, INGOs = international non-government organizations, CSOs = civil society organizations, PS = private sector; Organizer: MAF = Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, DoF = Department of Forestry, MoNRE = Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, DFRM = Department of Forest Management, LWU = Lao Women’s Union, LFNC = Lao Front for National Construction, NUOL = National University of Laos, NAFRI = National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute, WB = World Bank, KfW = Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, GIZ = Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, JICA = Japan International Cooperation Agency, UN-REDD/FAO = United Nations Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation program/Food and Agriculture Organization; Invited and participated: DoFI = Department of Forest Inspection, DALaM = Department of Agricultural Land Management, DOP= Department of Planning, MPI = Ministry of Planning and Investment, LD = Law Department, MoJ = Ministry of Justice, DEFD = Department of External Finance and Debt Management, MOF = Ministry of Finance, DOE = Department of Electricity, DOM = Department of Mining, MoEM = Ministry of Energy and Mines, DOR = Department of Roads, MPWT = Ministry of Public Works and Transport, MOD = Ministry of Defense, WWF = World Wide Fund for Nature, WCS = Wildlife Conservation Society, SNV = Foundation of Netherlands Volunteers, RECOFTC = Regional Community Forestry Training Center, IUCN = International Union For Conservation of Nature, VFIL = Village Focus International Laos, GCA = Green Community Alliance, LNCC = National Lao Chamber of Commerce, LFA = Lao Furniture Association; Invited but did not participate: Helvetas Laos = Swiss Development Organization Laos, GRET = Group de Recherches et d’Echanges Technologiques, MRLG = Mekong Region Land Governance, CAMKID = Community Association for Knowledge In Development, CKSA = Community Knowledge Support Association, MHP = Maeying Houamjai Pathana, GCDA = Green Community Development Association, GDA = Gender Development Association, LNRA = Love Nature Resource Association, RRDPA = Rural Research Development Promoting Knowledge Association, WCA = Wildlife Conservation Association, LBA = Lao Biodiversity Association. The table was adapted with permission from Boutthavong et al. [24]. Copy right 2017, Saykham Boutthavong. Sources: [33,34,35,36].
Table 2. Stakeholder participation in the provincial-level consultation.
Table 2. Stakeholder participation in the provincial-level consultation.
Stakeholder GroupsName of Organizations
OrganizerInvited and Participated
State stakeholdersCGAMAF (DoF, DoFI, DALaM), MoNRE (DFRM), MPI (DOP)
Semi-state stakeholdersMOLWU, LFNCPLWU, PLFNC
ARNUOL, NAFRI
State stakeholders
at the local level		PGAPAFOPAFO, PoNRE, PDPI, PEMO, PPWT, PMO
Non-state stakeholdersDPWB, KfW and GIZ, JICA
Stakeholder groups: CGA = central government agency, MO = mass organization, AR = academic/research institution, PGA = provincial government agency, DP = development partner; Organizer: MAF = Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, DoF = Department of Forestry, MoNRE = Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, DFRM = Department of Forest Management, DoFI = Department of Forest Inspection, DALaM = Department of Agricultural Land Management, DOP = Department of Planning, MPI = Ministry of Planning and Investment, LWU = Lao Women’s Union, LFNC = Lao Front for National Construction, NUOL = National University of Laos, NAFRI = National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute, PAFO = Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office, WB = World Bank, KfW = Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, GIZ = Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, JICA = Japan International Cooperation Agency; Invited and participated: PLWU = Provincial Lao Women’s Union, PLFNC = Provincial Lao Front for National Construction, PAFO = Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office, PoNRE = Provincial Office of Natural Resources and Environment, PDPI = Provincial Department of Plaining and Investment, PEMO = Provincial Energy and Mines Office, PPWT = Provincial Public Works and Transport Office, PMO = Provincial Military Office. The table was adapted with permission from Boutthavong et al. [24]. Copy right 2017, Saykham Boutthavong. Sources: [33,34,35,36].
Table 3. Stakeholder participation in the district-level consultation.
Table 3. Stakeholder participation in the district-level consultation.
Stakeholder GroupsName of Organizations
OrganizerInvited and Participated
State stakeholdersCGAMAF (DoF, DoFI, DALaM), MoNRE (DFRM), MPI (DOP)
Semi-state stakeholdersMOLWU, LFNCDLWU, DLFNC
ARNUOL, NAFRI
State stakeholders at the local levelPGAPAFO, PoNRE, PDPI
DGADAFODAFO, DoNRE, DPO, DPWTO, DEMO, DMO
Non-state stakeholdersDPWB, KfW and GIZ, JICA
Stakeholder groups: CGA = central government agency, MO = mass organization, AR = academic/research institution, PGA = provincial government agency, DGA = district government agency, DP = development partner; Organizer: MAF = Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, DoF = Department of Forestry, MoNRE = Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, DFRM = Department of Forest Management, DoFI = Department of Forest Inspection, DALaM = Department of Agricultural Land Management, DOP = Department of Planning, MPI = Ministry of Planning and Investment, LWU = Lao Women’s Union, LFNC = Lao Front for National Construction, NUOL = National University of Laos, NAFRI = National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute, PAFO = Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office, PoNRE = Provincial Office of Natural Resources and Environment, PDPI = Provincial Department Plaining and Investment, DAFO = District Agriculture and Forestry Office, WB = World Bank, KfW = Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, GIZ = Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, JICA = Japan International Cooperation Agency; Invited and participated: DLWU = District Lao Women’s Union, DLFNC = District Lao Front for National Construction, DAFO = District Agriculture and Forestry Office, DoNRE = District Office Natural Resources and Environment, DPO = District Planning Office, DEMO = District Energy and Mines Office, DPWTO = District Public Works and Transport Office, DMO = District Military Office. The table was adapted with permission from Boutthavong et al. [24]. Copy right 2017, Saykham Boutthavong. Sources: [33,34,35,36].
Table 4. Stakeholder participation in the village-level consultation.
Table 4. Stakeholder participation in the village-level consultation.
Stakeholder GroupsName of Organizations
OrganizerInvited and Participated
State stakeholdersCGAMAF (DoF, DoFI, DALaM), MoNRE (DFRM), MPI(DOP)
Semi-state stakeholdersMOLWU, LFNC
ARNUOL, NAFRI
State stakeholders at the local levelPGAPAFO, PoNRE, PDPI
DGADAFO, DoNRE, DPO
Non-state stakeholdersLCOM VC, VA, VU
DPWB, KfW and GIZ, JICA
Stakeholder groups: CGA = central government agency, MO = mass organization, AR = academic/research institution, PGA = provincial government agency, DGA = district government agency, LCOM = local community, DP = development partner; Organizer: MAF = Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, DoF = Department of Forestry, MoNRE = Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, DFRM = Department of Forest Management, DoFI = Department of Forest Inspection, DALaM = Department of Agricultural Land Management, DOP = Department of Planning, MPI = Ministry of Planning and Investment, LWU = Lao Women’s Union, LFNC = Lao Front for National Construction, NUOL = National University of Laos, NAFRI = National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute, PAFO = Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office, PoNRE = Provincial Office of Natural Resources and Environment, PDPI = Provincial Department of Plaining and Investment, DAFO = District Agriculture and Forestry Office, DoNRE = District Office of Natural Resources and the Environment, DPO = District Planning Office, WB = World Bank, KfW= Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, GIZ = Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, JICA = Japan International Cooperation Agency; Invited and participated: VC = village clusters, VA = village authorities, VU = village unions, including youth, women’s, and elders’ unions. The table was adapted with permission from Boutthavong et al. [24]. Copy right 2017, Saykham Boutthavong. Sources: [33,34,35,36].
Table 5. Roles of stakeholders in the central-level consultation.
Table 5. Roles of stakeholders in the central-level consultation.
Stakeholder GroupsName of Organizations
OrganizerParticipants
OCSPPTSM
State
stakeholders		CGAMAF (DoF), MoNRE (DFRM) MAF (DoF, DoFI, DALaM), MoNRE (DFRM), MPI(DOP), MoJ, MOF, MoEM, MPWT, MOD
Semi-state stakeholdersMOLWU, LFNC LWU, LFNC
ARNUOL, NAFRI NUOL, NAFRI
Non-state stakeholdersDP WB, KfW and GIZ, JICA, UN-REDD/FAOWB, KfW and GIZ, JICA
INGOs WWF, WCS, SNV, RECOFTC, IUCN
CSOs International: VFI
Local: GCA
PS Burapha agro-forestry company, LNCC, LFA
OC: organizes the consultation, SP: support in preparing and conducting the consultation, PT: provides on-job training, SM: shares opinions and makes decisions. The table was created by the authors. Sources: [33,34,35,36].
Table 6. Role of stakeholders in the consultation at the provincial level.
Table 6. Role of stakeholders in the consultation at the provincial level.
Stakeholder GroupsName of Organizations
OrganizerParticipants
OCSPPTSM
State
stakeholders		Central government agency (CGA)MAF (DoF, DoFI, DALaM), MoNRE (DFRM), MPI (DOP) MAF (DoF, DoFI, DALaM), MoNRE (DFRM), MPI (DOP)
Semi-state stakeholdersMass organization (MO)LWU, LFNC LWU, LFNC
Academic/research institution (AR)NUOL, NAFRI NUOL, NAFRI
State
stakeholders at the local level		Provincial government agency (PGA)PAFO PAFO, PoNRE, PDPI, PEMO, PPWT, PMO
Non-state stakeholdersDevelopment partner (DP) WB, KfW and GIZ, JICA
OC: organizes the consultation, SP: support in preparing and conducting the consultation, PT: provides on-job training, SM: shares opinions and makes decisions. The table was created by the authors. Sources: [33,34,35,36].
Table 7. Role of stakeholders in the district-level consultation.
Table 7. Role of stakeholders in the district-level consultation.
Stakeholder GroupsName of Organizations
OrganizerParticipants
OCSPPTSM
State
stakeholders		Central government agency (CGA) MAF (DoF, DoFI, DALaM), MoNRE (DFRM), MPI (DOP)
Semi-state stakeholdersMass organization (MO) LWU, LFNC
Academic/research institution (AR) NUOL, NAFRI
State
stakeholders at the local level		Provincial government agency (PGA)PAFO, PoNRE, DPI PAFO, PoNRE, PDPI
District government agency (DGA)DAFO DAFO, DoNRE, DPO, DPWTO, DEMO, DMO
Non-state stakeholdersDevelopment partner (DP) WB, KfW and GIZ, JICA
OC: organizes the consultation, SP: support in preparing and conducting the consultation, PT: provides on-job training, SM: shares opinions and makes decisions. The table was created by the authors. Sources: [33,34,35,36].
Table 8. Role of stakeholders in the consultation at the village level.
Table 8. Role of stakeholders in the consultation at the village level.
Stakeholder GroupsName of Organizations
OrganizerParticipants
OCSPPTSM
State
stakeholders		Central government agency (CGA) MAF (DoF, DoFI, DALaM), MoNRE (DFRM), MPI(DOP),
Semi-state stakeholdersMass organization (MO) LWU, LFNC
Academic/research institution (AR) NUOL, NAFRI
State
stakeholders at the local level		Provincial government agency (PGA) PAFO, PoNRE, PDPI
District government agency (DGA)DAFO, DoNRE, DPO
Non-state stakeholdersLocal community (LCOM) Village cluster and village authorities, village unions (youth, women’s, and elders’ unions)
Development partner (DP) WB, KfW and GIZ, JICA
OC: organizes the consultation, SP: support in preparing and conducting the consultation, PT: provides on-job training, SM: shares opinions and makes decisions. The table was created by the authors. Sources: [33,34,35,36].
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sawathvong, S.; Hyakumura, K.; Fujisaki, T. Stakeholder Participation in REDD+ Program: The Case of the Consultation Process in Laos. Land 2024, 13, 1137. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081137

AMA Style

Sawathvong S, Hyakumura K, Fujisaki T. Stakeholder Participation in REDD+ Program: The Case of the Consultation Process in Laos. Land. 2024; 13(8):1137. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081137

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sawathvong, Soukphavanh, Kimihiko Hyakumura, and Taiji Fujisaki. 2024. "Stakeholder Participation in REDD+ Program: The Case of the Consultation Process in Laos" Land 13, no. 8: 1137. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081137

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop