-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
1/75
CO2
Compensation in Practice:
What Makes Actors Cooperate??
Assessing Stability and Dynamics in the Actors Cooperation andPolicy Processes Using the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF):
A Case Study of the UWA-FACE Project at Mount Elgon in Uganda
Muhammad Sohail
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
2/75
CO2 Compensation in Practice:
What Makes Actors Cooperate??
Assessing Stability and Dynamics in the Actors
Cooperation and Policy Processes Using the
Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF):
A Case Study of the UWA-FACE Project at
Mount Elgon in Uganda
August 2008
Thesis supervision
Marielle van der Zouwen
Muhammad Sohail820312784070
Wageningen University and Research
M.Sc. Forest & Nature Conservation Policy
E-mail: [email protected]
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
3/75
i
List of acronyms
ACF Advocacy Coalition FrameworkBoD Board of Directors
CDM Clean Development Mechanism
CER Certified Emission Reduction
CNG Climate Neutral Group
EM Emission Trading
ERU Emission Reduction Unit
FACE Forest Absorbing Carbon dioxide Emissions
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FERN Forest and European Union Resource Network
FSC Forest Stewardship Council
JI Joint Implementation
KP Kyoto Protocol
MENP Mount Elgon National Park
MECDP Mount Elgon Conservation and Development Project
NGO Non Government Organization
PNA Policy Network Analysis
SEP Dutch Electricity Generation Board
SGS Socit Gnrale de Surveillance
UN United Nations
UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UWA Uganda Wildlife Authority
VER Verifiable Emission ReductionWB World Bank
WRM World Rainforest Movement
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
4/75
ii
Contents
Chapter 1
Introduction..............................................................................................................................1
1.1 The climate change and the Kyoto Protocol............................................................1
1.2 Background..............................................................................................................3
1.3 Problem Statement................................................................................................... 5
1.4 General objective and research questions................................................................6
Chapter 2
Theoretical Framework............................................................................................................7
2.1 The choice of theoretical perspective ...................................................................... 7
2.2 The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) ...........................................................7
2.3 The ACF premises ................................................................................................... 8
2.4 The key concepts of the ACF................................................................................. 10
2.5 Theoretical expectations ........................................................................................ 13
Chapter 3
Research Methodology ..........................................................................................................17
3.1 Character of the thesis work .................................................................................. 17
3.2 Data collection .......................................................................................................19
3.3 The arrangements prior to data collection .............................................................21
Chapter 4
The partnership in 1989-1999................................................................................................244.1 Events in 1989-1999 .............................................................................................. 24
4.2 Interpretation..........................................................................................................29
Chapter 5
The partnership in 2000-2008................................................................................................36
5.1 Events in 2000 and beyond.................................................................................... 36
5.2 Interpretation..........................................................................................................42
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
5/75
iii
Chapter 6
Conclusion and Discussion.................................................................................................... 476.1 Conclusion .............................................................................................................47
6.2 Reflections on results............................................................................................. 53
6.3 Theoretical reflections ........................................................................................... 55
6.4 Discrepancies faced ............................................................................................... 56
6.5 Reflection on research method used ...................................................................... 57
References..............................................................................................................................60
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
6/75
iv
List of tables
Table 4.1 32
Table 4.2.33
Table 6.1 47
Table 6.2 48
Table 6.3 50
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
7/75
v
Acknowledgement
Above all, thanks to Almighty Allah for His blessings and for providing me the strength to
undertake this study. Besides, I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to the following
persons whose support made possible the completion of my masters thesis, a dream came
true!
First of all, countless thanks to Marielle van der Zouwen, my supervisor from the Forest and
Nature Conservation Policy Group for her endurance, guidance and the important
discussions in understanding of this specific case. Without her direction, I would probably
not be able to see the critical aspects of this study that interlinked the theory and the
empirical case. Thanks to Prof. Bas Arts for his warm welcoming in the Wageningen UR
and for his support and valuable discussion in choosing this interesting theme as a topic for
my thesis research.
I would also like to thank the European Commission, the University of Joensuu in Finland
and its staff whose beliefs in my capabilities enabled me to acquire this opportunity of
carrying out my masters in European Forestry.
My special thanks go to Haider, Tamara and Isabella whose facilitation in the lay out and
giving a final touch to this report was of enormous support. I wish to thank Martijn Snoep of
the Face foundation for his outstanding support and assistance in accessing valuable sources
of information without which this task would probably not be achievable.
My family and friends, who always wanted to see me touching the acme of success and
prosperity, also deserve exceptional appreciation. The company of Farrakh, Nadeem, Saad,
Nazir, Sabaz and all others made me feel at home. My colleagues from the EuropeanForestry, especially Albin, Efrian, Funso and Imole have shared with me the nicest moments
and have been a support in glum during the last two years.
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
8/75
vi
Abstract
This case study deals with the core idea of interaction among two actors, the Face
foundation and the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA). In light of the theoretical perspective
of the advocacy coalition framework (ACF), it attempts to describe how these two actors
form an advocacy coalition or partnership against the issue of climate change in order to
accomplish the goals and objectives of their respective organizations. Considerable attention
is paid to the policy processes of the actors involved, and to the factors that explain their
partnership. It further highlights the state of affairs where this partnership achieves the
heights of stability. Theoretically, the concept of the belief system premise of the ACF has
been particularly focused, which tries to understand the empirical phenomenon of actorscooperating with each other in a particular coalition.
This study also portrays the character of certain external factors that play an imperative
role in bringing changes in the stable cooperation or partnership of the Face foundation and
the Uganda Wildlife Authority. One of such important factors, in this case, is the report from
the World Rainforest Movement (WRM) that brought the attention of the media, the
international critics, the general public and other important actors to the stable cooperation
of the Face foundation and UWA bringing significant alterations in the strategic policies ofthe two actors. The WRM showed up as an organization that came up with its supporters
and partners as another advocacy coalition with entirely different ideas and perceptions
regarding the issue of the climate change. This study concludes that theses differences in
beliefs and the WRM report did not succeed in altering the partnership of UWA and the
Face foundation, it however, brought significant changes in the behavior of important actors,
and ultimately in the policies of UWA and the Face foundation.
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
9/75
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 The climate change and the Kyoto Protocol
Environmental issues have increasingly become of global concern getting an extraordinary
focus during the recent past. The smouldering issue of climate change has forced many
global actors, including environmental NGOs, concerned about how to mitigate this change.
To tackle the issue, a wide range of international negotiations have taken place so far. The
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the
Earth Summit, was one of the major moves in this regard. Held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992
this conference, among others, resulted in an agreement called the Climate Change
Convention or the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
This was an important achievement that led to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, an international
agreement among countries aiming to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions and presence of
the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (FAO, 2001). The countries that have signed the
convention are known as Parties to the Convention.
The Parties to the Climate Change Convention have acknowledged the global climate
change and called for the widest possible cooperation by all the countries and their
participation in an effective and appropriate international response (UNFCCC, 1992). On
the other hand, FAO (2005) recognized forests apart from performing many other
functions serving as carbon sink, hence improving the global climate. FAO (2006) has
also acknowledged the negative impact of deforestation and stated that 25-30 percent of the
greenhouse gases released to the atmosphere each year had caused by deforestation (FAO,
2006). Likewise the global forest figures show that about 13 million hectares of the world
forests are cut down every year (FAO, 2005), which further threatened the climate. These
facts have stimulated actors, especially those concerned with the climate change, to come
forward and play their role.
The Kyoto Protocol provides opportunity for actors (individuals, organizations, countries
etc) to take part in the carbon trade under the auspicious UNFCCC and to help mitigate the
climate change. The most important aspect of the Protocol, according to FAO (2001), is the
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
10/75
Chapter 1: Introduction
CO2 compensation in practice: What makes actors cooperate?? 2
binding commitment by the industrialized and developed countries (referred to as Annex-I
countries) to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2% of 1990 levels
during the commitment period (2008-2012).
The Protocol has also approved the use of three flexibility mechanisms (described in the
next paragraph) to facilitate the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. This has given
rise to the carbon market where numerous actors are allowed to buy and sell carbon credits
or emission allowances, which is called Emission Trading (Grubb et al., 1999, p-xxix). The
ultimate objective of all these efforts is to reduce greenhouse gas emission to the
atmosphere, mainly from the fossil fuels. However, many, for instance Noble and Scholes
(2001) believe that forests and soils also play an important role in the Kyotos mechanism
by capturing and storing significant amounts of carbon. This has encouraged and attracted
numerous actors, especially the environmental NGOs that aver to sustain a clean
environment and to maintain the atmospheric carbon balance through forestry activities and
projects.
Although the Protocol urges the developed countries to reduce their emissions within their
national boundaries, yet it facilitates them with the flexibility mechanisms, i.e. Joint
Implementation (JI), the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Emission Trading
(ET). The JI refers to the projects carried out within the developed (Annex-I) countries with
the prime objective to reduce emission of greenhouse gases or by taking up and storing
them, e.g. planting forests (Stuart and Costa, 1998; Face foundation, 2008). This as stated
by the Kyoto Protocol delivers Emission Reduction Units (ERUs) which could be
credited to the investing country against its emission reduction target. In other words JI
allows the creation, acquisition and transfer of the ERUs (FAO, 2001). A CDM project on
the other hand, entails the developed countries to undertake projects in developing countrieswith the same aim as Joint Implementation. This however is different in terms that such
projects should contribute to the sustainable development of the host (non-Annex-I) country
and must be independently certified (Stuart and Costa, 1998; FAO 2001). The latter
requirement, according to FAO (2001), gave rise to the term Certified Emission Reduction
or CER describing the output of a CDM project, and which could be banked under the
article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol from the year 2000 onwards. The Emission Trading (ET),
as set out in article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol, allows countries with spare emission units to
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
11/75
Chapter 1: Introduction
CO2 compensation in practice: What makes actors cooperate?? 3
sell their excess capacity to countries (or actors) that are over their targets (UNFCCC,
2008). Thus a new commodity was created in the form of removals or emission reductions.
Since the CO2 is the principal greenhouse gas, people speak simply of trading in carbon,
which is now tracked and traded like any other commodity, this is known as carbon market
(UNFCCC, 2008).
However, polemic prevails amongst various international conservation organizations
whether or not to include the forestry activities in these flexible mechanisms. For example
The Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, Winrock Foundation and Sierra Club
strongly favour to include forestry projects in the CDM while other NGOs like WWF
International, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are still quite uncertain and suspicious
(FAO, 2001). The grass-root organizations and local NGOs have some support for CDM as
they deem it as a potential source of funding; others see it as another threat to the rural poor
from the processes of globalization (FAO, 2001). Some organizations such as the World
Rainforest Movement (WRM), call it a temporary solution to a long term problem on the
others backyard depriving some people from their rights. In Short, there exist
disagreements among actors (policy makers, politicians, scientists, NGOs etc) regarding
inclusion (or non-inclusion) of forestry projects in the clean development mechanism of the
Kyoto Protocol. In spite of all these differences, however, there are forestry projects carried
out worldwide by actors that believe in the positive role of forests in mitigating the climate
change. One of such projects is the UWA-Face project that is jointly carried out by the
Uganda Wildlife Authority and the Face foundation at the Mount Elgon National Park
(MENP) in Uganda.
1.2 Background
The Face foundation is a non-government and not-for-profit organization based in the
Netherlands, which in 1990, started operating under the NV SEP, the state-owned electricity
generation board. The prime objective of the Face foundation was to partly offset the
atmospheric CO2, hence putting its efforts in mitigating the climate change through
afforestation programs. The Face foundation, since 2000, operates as an independent
organization. The foundation assumes that large scale afforestation and forest conservation
would make a major contribution to abate the greenhouse effect in the coming 100 years
(Face Foundation, 2007). As per its assumption, until recently, it has carried out forestry
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
12/75
Chapter 1: Introduction
CO2 compensation in practice: What makes actors cooperate?? 4
projects in countries like the Czech Republic, Ecuador, Malaysia, and Uganda (Mwima et
al., 2006). The Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA), on the other hand, is the government
institution responsible for managing the National Parks, Wildlife Reserves and Wildlife
Sanctuaries of the country. The mission of UWA is to conserve and sustainably manage the
wildlife and Protected areas of Uganda for the benefit of the people of Uganda and the
global community (UWA, 2008).
The Face foundation, in 1994, initiated a forest restoration project at Mount Elgon National
Park (MENP) in Uganda in partnership with the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA), and is
therefore referred to as the UWA-FACE project. The main objective of the Face foundation,
in this project, was to plant trees on 25,000 hectares of the park storing the atmospheric CO2
and contributing to abate the enhanced greenhouse effect. Hence the foundation owns the
carbon stored in the trees, while UWA, on the other hand, aims at restoring the parks
natural ecosystem that was heavily degraded in the past (Mwima et al., 2006). The forest
management operations at MENP, as the Face foundation claims, maintain the long term
social and economic well being of the local communities. Hence, the Face foundation
believes that the UWA-Face project, apart from providing environmental services, makes
available benefits to the local communities. The main goal of the foundation however
remains the same: abating CO2 from the atmosphere which is quite explicit from its logo
More forest, less CO2. The UWA-Face project is still under operation by the same two
partners, UWA and the Face foundation with the main objectives to rehabilitate the parks
natural vegetation and to partly offset the atmospheric CO2. The joint partnership between
the two actors has been continued for more than a decade. Interestingly, during the recent
past, this partnership has got a lot of media and public attention when the World Rainforest
Movement (WRM) published a report indicting the Face foundation and UWA for violating
the rights of the local people living in and around the Mount Elgon National Park. The
WRM, in its report, indicated that the UWA-Face project had deprived the local people form
their lands and land use rights. It therefore demands the withdrawal of the FSC certificate
from the UWA-Face project as it blames that the project is not in line with the principals of
the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
13/75
Chapter 1: Introduction
CO2 compensation in practice: What makes actors cooperate?? 5
1.3 Problem Statement
This is clear that the Face foundation and Uganda Wildlife Authority have been undertaking
the UWA-Face project and cooperating with each other for a long time. Notably, the nature
of both the actors is quite different from each other in terms of their work and the concerned
objectives. The Uganda Wildlife Authority is a government institution responsible for the
conservation of wildlife and protected areas in Uganda. Face foundation, on the other hand,
is a non-government and non-for profit organization that strives for a cleaner environment
by carrying out forestry projects and mitigating the climate change. Moreover, the Face
foundation is based in the Netherlands while most of its projects are carried out in other
countries. Despite of the fact that the two actors are quite different from each other, the
cooperation between them seems very stable and remarkable. It is therefore assumed that
UWA and the Face foundation must have some kind of shared ideas concerning their
specific project at Mount Elgon, otherwise they would not work in partnership for such a
long time. Interestingly, in 2006 there had been a lot of commotion which came when the
WRM published its report about the Mount Elgon National Park. This has caught attention
of the media and the international conservation organizations, some of which have been
criticizing their work. Thus, I was keen to know how the WRM report has affected this
stable cooperation, which has been going on for such a long time among the two actors.
The focus of this study is, therefore, to look into the depth and explore how has this
partnership evolved and how can the seemingly stable cooperation between UWA and the
Face foundation be explained. Furthermore, how the WRM report, and the media attention
thereafter, has affected this stable cooperation.
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
14/75
Chapter 1: Introduction
CO2 compensation in practice: What makes actors cooperate?? 6
1.4 General objective and research questions
The general objective of the proposed case study is to understand and explain the
development of innovative partnership among the actors, the Face foundation and the
Uganda Wildlife Authority, and to discern the grounds that make their partnership stable.
The study further looks into this partnership of the two actors in terms of the CO2
sequestration as it remains a prominent aspect in their cooperation in the UWA-Face project.
Based on the said objective, the following research questions are proposed:
1. How has the cooperation between the Face foundation and UWA evolved since thelaunch of the UWA-FACE project until now?
2. How can the stability in partnership between the Face Foundation and UWA beexplained?
3. How has the World Rainforest Movement report affected the stable cooperationbetween the Face foundation and Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA)?
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
15/75
7
Chapter 2
Theoretical Framework
2.1 The choice of theoretical perspective
In the field of policy, there exit a range of approaches; each of them might be used to
explain certain cases and/ or phenomena. Therefore, it was rather tricky to choose and apply
an appropriate approach that could explain properly the case of UWA-Face project in
Uganda. Actors and their relationships, rules of a specific system, networking among actors
and discourses etc. are such aspects of empirical cases that could be explained by theories
such as policy arrangement approach (PAA), policy discourse analysis (PDA) or policy net
work analysis (PNA) etc. Likewise, the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) developed by
Sabatier in 1988, has its notion of sharing the policy core beliefs which coerce actors to
form coalition and cooperate with each other. This concept has seemingly been observed
among the actors in this specific case. The Face foundation and UWA have their joint
project, the UWA-Face, operating at the Mount Elgon National Park in Uganda for a long
time. For this reason, it is assumed that they cooperate because of sharing some ideas or
goals concerning their specific project, which is precisely the core of the advocacy coalition
framework (ACF). Therefore, among other theoretical perspectives, the ACF gave the
impression of being the best as its premises seem to precisely fit into the empirical case.
Based on this fact, the theoretical perspective of advocacy coalition framework (ACF) was
chosen as a lens to describe this particular case of the UWA-Face project at Mount Elgon
National Park (MENP) in Uganda.
2.2 The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF)As mentioned before, the theoretical framework for this case study is provided by the
Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) with particular emphasis on its belief systems.
This approach was developed as an alternative to the stages model of the policy process
(Elliot and Rodolphe, 2001). Furthermore, the main idea behind developing the ACF was to
study the complex public policy processes involving multiple actors. In this case, it is
applied to study and understand the cooperation, the stability and the dynamism in this
cooperation and policies of the Face foundation and its partner, the Uganda Wildlife
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
16/75
Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework
CO2 compensation in practice: What makes actors cooperate?? 8
Authority (UWA). The ACF describes policy changes as a result of processes within the
subsystem in question, which is influenced by relatively stable parameters and external
events (Elliot and Rodolphe, 2001). Sabatier (1988) and Jenkins-Smith (1999) described
five basic premises of ACF based largely on the policy implementation in public policy.
2.3 The ACF premises
The very first premise of ACF reflects on the importance of technical information regarding
the magnitude and aspects of the problem in policy change. It further advocates considering
the impact of various solutions regarding the problem in question. In this case, I relate the
importance of technical information in policy change to the top managements and decision
makers of both organizations as they, inter alia, are supposed to be the main actors that have
enormous influence on the policies of their organizations. Moreover, they are deemed to be
erudite enough to consider the impact of various solutions while taking decision regarding
any problem.
The second premise of the framework argues to consider a time perspective of ten years or
more in order to understand a policy process or policy change. This assertion is based on the
Weisss (1977) argument who states that short term decision making will underestimate the
influence of policy analysis. Sabatier (1988; 1998) argues that utilizing the time frame of a
decade or more is important to complete, at least, a cycle of formulation, implementation
and re-formulation of a policy process. In this case, I consider a time frame of almost two
decades to assess the distinct changes in the cooperation and the relevant policy processes of
the Face foundation and UWA. I, therefore, focus on a period of 19 years starting from 1989
when the Dutch electricity generation board, the NV SEP, started setting up the Face
foundation until 2008, a stage where the Face foundation and UWA are considered to
have undergone changes in their partnership and the relevant policies. As per ACF, this time
perspective of 19 years is enough to assess the policy processes of the two actors involved in
the case under study.
Similarly the third basic premise argues about the unit of analysis to understand a policy
process. Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1988, 1999) argue that this unit of analysis, in modern
industrial societies, is not any specific government or organization but the policy subsystem
(or domain). A subsystem consists of actors belonging to various public or private
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
17/75
Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework
CO2 compensation in practice: What makes actors cooperate?? 9
organizations who are actively concerned about a policy problem or issue, e.g. air pollution
control, and they regularly seek to influence the public policy in that domain. Sabatier and
Jenkins-Smith (1999) further explain that policy making, in any subsystem, is enough
complicated process and the actors must specialize in their field if they have to influence. In
my study, I narrate the subsystem to a series of debates such as the carbon sequestration,
biodiversity & wildlife conservation, and the afforestation debates that are directly or
indirectly related to the broader concept of the climate change. Furthermore, I consider that
actors from government and private organizations, including UWA and the Face foundation,
take part in such debates to influence the public policies, or to achieve their goals and
objectives.
The forth basic premise of ACF is regarding a common conception about the bordering of
a subsystem. It argues that a policy subsystem should be broadened to include two important
categories of actors instead of considering only the iron triangles, i.e. traditional state
settings of administration, legislation and interest groups. The two categories proposed by
Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1999) include: (1) journalists, researchers and policy analysts
which according to Sabatier (1988) play an important role in disseminating and evaluating
the policy ideas, and (2) actors at all levels of government that involve in policy formulation
and implementation. The rationale for latter is that policy innovation, very often in most of
the countries, initiate at the sub-national level which engross the involvement of mentioned
actors. Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1999) argue about the influence of these actors in policy
making referring to two decades of empirical research. In this particular research, I take into
account the role of media and journalists; and included a TV documentary and reports from
the journalists concerning the UWA-Face project. Furthermore, the viewpoints of
professionals from various non-governmental organizations and free lance consultants
some of which worked for the government in the past are included in this research.
The fifth and important idea of ACF takes into account the conceptualization of belief
systems because most of the public policies implicitly incorporate theories to achieve their
objectives. This concept involves the value priorities, perceptions of important causal
relationships, perception of the world states and the assumptions regarding the effectiveness
of various policy instruments. In this particular case, I perceive different aspects of the
actors ideas (their goals and objectives etc), their value priorities and their preferences as
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
18/75
Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework
CO2 compensation in practice: What makes actors cooperate?? 10
their beliefs. This conception of the belief system is discussed further in details in the next
section.
2.4 The key concepts of the ACF
Apart from the aforementioned five premises, there are various concepts rooted deep into
the notion of the advocacy coalition framework. This section describes the core of these
concepts and their relevance to the specific case of the UWA-Face project.
The stable and dynamic parameters
The structure of ACF describes two exogenous factors to a subsystem; one relatively stable
and the other more dynamic. The latter parameter is more liable to significant fluctuations
over the course of years; hence act as major stimuli to the process of policy change. These
factors affect the constraints and opportunities of the subsystem actors (Sabatier, 1988). The
stable parameters include basic constitutional structure, socio-cultural values, and natural
resources of a political system. Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1999) argue that these variables,
except in a very long term, are very resistant to change, hence seldom attacked by the
coalition strategies. The other exogenous parameters to the subsystem are more likely to
change over time. They include (1) major socio-economic changes such as the rise of socialmovements; (2) changes in the systematic governing coalitions and (3) policy decisions and
impacts from other subsystems.
In this case, I consider the stable parameters in terms of the basic characteristics of the
UWA-Face project which being stable cannot be changed, e.g. location of the project, access
of each actor to this location, and the rules and regulations of both the organizations etc.
Furthermore, I focus on the European and African cultural values that are literally quite
resistant to change and play an important role in the partnership of actors from diversebackgrounds. In the dynamic parameters, I consider the social and economic conditions of
the Face foundation and UWA as the major dynamic factors that might have influence on
their partnership. Likewise, changes in coalitions and certain events like the policy decisions
of other subsystems are taken into account and examined if they have any impact on the
mutual cooperation and policies of the two actors.
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
19/75
Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework
CO2 compensation in practice: What makes actors cooperate?? 11
The advocacy coalition
Sabatier (1988) argues that actors, in a policy subsystem, can be aggregated into a numberof advocacy coalitions each composed of people from various governmental and private
organizations (Sabatier, 1988; Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1999). They further argue that
actors in each coalition share a set of normative and causal beliefs, and engage in
coordinated activities over time. In the case of UWA-Face project, I assume that both the
Face foundation and the Uganda Wildlife Authority share some ideas or beliefs concerning
their joint project, and therefore form an advocacy coalition to achieve their goals and
objectives. Thus, in this specific case, I deem the partnership or cooperation between the
Face foundation and the Uganda Wildlife Authority as the core of the advocacy coalition.
The beliefs system
The ACF explains the belief system of coalitions in a hierarchical structure that is composed
of three layers or levels. According to Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1999) the highest or
broadest level of the shared belief system is called deep core which includes the basic
ontological and normative beliefs. This type of belief describes the relative valuation of
thoughts, for instance the individual freedom versus social equality that operates across
virtually all policy domains. The defining characteristic of deep core beliefs, according to
the ACF, is that they are fundamentally normative in nature and are axioms, i.e. universally
recognized truths. Practically it is not possible to determine the deep core beliefs of actors or
organizations. Hence, it is not easy to determine and study the deep core beliefs of actors in
a subsystem. This aspect of the belief system, therefore, is not dealt with in this research,
however considerable attention is paid to the policy core beliefs and the secondary
aspects that are described by the ACF under the belief systems.
The next level of the belief system describes the basic normative commitments and causal
perceptions of a coalition across the entire subsystem, and is referred to as the policy core
beliefs. It includes as Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1999) illustrate the fundamental value
priorities and the basic policy instruments of a coalition. In this specific study, I consider the
organizational goals and objectives of UWA and the Face foundation as their policy core
beliefs since they serve as the guiding principles and determine their actions or behaviour
within the coalition. Another rationale for taking the goals and objectives of organizations as
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
20/75
Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework
CO2 compensation in practice: What makes actors cooperate?? 12
policy core beliefs in this case is that they serve as the glue between the actors within the
same coalition, which is in particular inline with the ACF. Hence, I assume that the actors
having more or less the same organizational or institutional goals and objectives cooperate
with each other.
The third level of a coalitions belief system, described by the ACF, is known as secondary
aspects comprising of larger set of narrower beliefs, which are assumed to easily adjust in
the new settings such as the emergence of new data, new concepts and experiences, and
changing strategic considerations (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1999). In my study, I take
those actions, activities or beliefs of UWA and the Face foundation as secondary aspects,
which are noticeably important for the respective actors but are given less priority compared
to their main goals and objectives, i.e. their policy core beliefs. However, certain conditions
are also taken into account for these actions, activities or beliefs that might influence the
choice of priority on the agenda of these actors.
Policy oriented learning
The ACF has a particular interest in understanding the policy-oriented learning in the
general process of policy change (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1999). Sabatier and Jenkins-
Smith (1999) have followed the Heclos (1974) approach in explaining the term policy
oriented learning. They defined it as the relatively lasting alterations of thoughts or
behavioural intentions that result from experiences or new information, and are concerned
with the attainment or revision of policy objectives (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1999).
According to ACF, such learning is instrumental and is crucial for the members of various
coalitions to further their policy objectives. The ACF connects this approach of policy-
oriented learning with the socio-economic conditions and system-wide governing coalitions
which can dramatically alter the composition and resources of various coalitions within a
particular subsystem. Similarly, turnover in personnel of an organization or institution, as
ACF explains, can also substantially alter the political resources of various coalitions and
thus the policy decisions. The term policy-oriented learning and the mentioned factors are
essentially entrenched in this case study, as they are considered crucial to influence the
cooperation and policies of the actors involved. These, in fact, are the some of the major
features that constitute the basis for this case study as they determine the changes in
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
21/75
Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework
CO2 compensation in practice: What makes actors cooperate?? 13
behaviour, alteration in policies and ultimately the cooperation among the actors within a
coalition. Therefore, in this study, I regard certain external events and other important
factors as the major driving forces in terms of policy oriented learning. These factors, among
others, include the emergence of new research/ information and the changes in the socio-
economic conditions and changes in personnel of both UWA and the Face foundation etc.
2.5 Theoretical expectations
In the first chapter, I explained the background of the UWA-Face project and proposed three
research questions, while in the first part of this chapter, I explained the theoretical
viewpoints of the ACF and linked them to the real case of the UWA-Face project. Now in
this part, I pin down the expectations based on the research questions and the explained
theoretical perspective that I anticipate from this study. These theoretical expectations are
explained below according the proposed research questions and certain aspects of the
advocacy coalition framework described by Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1999).
Expectations from the 1st
research question
The first research question stated that how has the cooperation between the Face
foundation and UWA evolved since the launch of UWA-FACE project until now? Sabatierand Jenkins-Smith (1999) under the ACF hypothesize that the principle glue holding (the
actors within) coalition together is the agreement over policy core beliefs. Sabatier and
Jenkins-Smith (1999) further argue that since the policy core beliefs are very resistant to
change, the assemblage of co-operators and opponents in within a subsystem will remain
stable over periods of a decade or more. However, change can occur in the policy core
beliefs of coalitions if the experiences reveal serious anomalies. Based on this conception, I
expect from this case study research that the Face foundation and the Uganda Wildlife
Authority share the same policy core beliefs, i.e. they share (at least some of) their
organizational goals and objectives in terms of the UWA-Face project. The particular idea
both the actors share is the sequestration of the atmospheric CO2. Thus, the commonality in
their goals and objectives concerning the UWA-Face project induces the cooperation
between the two actors. Therefore, the following factors, according to my expectations, are
likely to contribute to the cooperation between the Face foundation and the Uganda Wildlife
Authority.
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
22/75
Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework
CO2 compensation in practice: What makes actors cooperate?? 14
The commonality in policy goals and objectives regarding the UWA-Face project
The shared ideas about CO2 sequestration
Expectations from the 2nd
research questions
The second research question stated that how can the stability in partnership between the
Face Foundation and UWA be explained? This question is more focused on exploring the
grounds that contributed to the stability of cooperation or partnership between UWA and the
Face foundation. Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1999) in the ACF apart from linking the
policy core beliefs to stable cooperation define certain stable and dynamic parameters
external to the subsystem that determine the resources or constraints of the actors. This
means that these parameters can either contribute to the stable cooperation or could prove
risky to the actors partnership or cooperation. The stable parameters defined by Sabatier
and Jenkins-Smith (1999) include the basic constitutional structure, socio-cultural values,
and the natural resources of a political system. What I expect from this research is that the
seemingly long term partnership between the Face foundation and UWA stabilized due to
their same policy core beliefs (common goals and objectives) concerning the UWA-Face
project and the enduring relationship between the two actors based on their social and
economic conditions. Consequently, the following factors are expected to explain the stable
cooperation between the Face foundation and the Uganda Wildlife Authority.
The common goals and objectives regarding the UWA-Face project The social and economic conditions of UWA and the Face foundation The enduring relationship of UWA and Face foundation for longer periods Mutual trust of the two actors
Expectations from the 3rd
research questions
Whereas the first two research questions were focused on evolving the cooperation and the
stability of this cooperation between the Face foundation and UWA, the third research
question pays more attention to the changes in stability of this cooperation. The proposed
third research question was, therefore, structured as how has the World Rainforest
Movement report affected the stable cooperation between the Face foundation and the
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
23/75
Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework
CO2 compensation in practice: What makes actors cooperate?? 15
Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA)? The advocacy coalition framework, in its policy
change hypothesis states that the policy core beliefs of a coalition are unlikely to be changed
in the absence of significant perturbations or events external to the subsystem. The ACF
here refers to the external dynamic parameters of a subsystem, i.e. changes in the socio-
economic conditions, public opinions and system-wide governing coalitions etc. In this case,
I perceive the report published by the World Rainforest Movement in 2006 as an external
perturbation and expect that this report has negatively affected the stable cooperation
between the Face foundation and the Uganda Wildlife Authority as it has brought the media
and other critiques attentions to the UWA-Face project. The WRM, in this report accuses
UWA and the Face foundation that they have violated the rights of the local people living in
and around the Mount Elgon National Park that were recently evicted. This situation
triggered the criticism on both the partners, and various actors were pressuring them to
discontinue the project activities at MENP, which has threatened their partnership to break.
The research in this case, takes into account the particulars that marked impact on the stable
cooperation of Face foundation and UWA, and the facts that how this cooperation has been
affected. Accordingly, the following factors are expected as driving forces that stimulate
changes in the stable cooperation and the policies of the Face foundation and the Uganda
Wildlife Authority.
The report published by WRM in 2006 against the Face foundation and UWA Attention of media and other critiques towards the UWA-Face project The pressure from various international conservation organizations to halt the project
activities and provide the lands back to the local people at the MENP.
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
24/75
16
Chapter 3
Research Methodology
3.1 Character of the thesis work
The case study approach was followed to analyze and interpret this research process. A
case study is the study of particularity and complexity of a single case coming to understand
its activity within important circumstances (Stake, 1995). In a case study, as Stake further
argues, we look for the details of interaction within its contexts. Erickson, according to
Stake (1995) puts emphasis on the interpretative characteristic (that focuses on the
interpretation aspect) of case study designs. This research however, is both interpretative as
well as descriptive in nature, and is based on single case study. De Vaus (2001) describes
another type of case study which is described as clinical in nature which means that it does
not deal with developing or testing new theory rather uses the existing one in order to
understand the case in terms of what has been going on and how?
De Vaus (2001) describes case study as the research process that deals with the whole case
but cannot possibly consists of everything. The author further argues that describing
everything, in a descriptive case study, is simply impossible and that there is must be a
focus. Description of a case study cannot be without a theory; therefore, things that are
supposed to be described should be selected and organized at first (e.g. selection and
application of the ACF in the second chapter). The description highlights the case in the
form ofinterpretation rather than mirror image (De Vaus, 2001). This interpretation can be
done using theories that highlight the events, which are relevant and important. In other
words, the use of theory filters outsome facts that are of particular importance to theresearcher. The use of theory describing importance of a particular aspect, however, depends
upon who is describing what and how certain categories are perceived as important. The
selection of fact, is supposed to be important as well as relevant to the theory applied. The
important aspects, for instance, relevant to the ACF, in this case study to be highlighted, are
the actors coalition formation, stability of these coalition and the external factors that affect
both the process of coalition formation and the stability therein.
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
25/75
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
CO2 compensation in practice: What makes actors cooperate?? 17
The investigation process, in this research focused on developing a full picture of the events
that occurred during a time period of 19 years (1989-2008). This will emphasize to
comprehend alteration in coalition formation and strategies of Face foundation as a result ofthe competing ideas of WRM that confronted those of the Face foundation regarding
sequestration of the atmospheric carbon. Particular attention will be paid to understand
specific phenomena as per each research question.
This research attempts to describe how certain actors in a subsystem perceive and frame
issues (e.g. climate change and CO2 sequestration etc), and how they tend to form advocacy
coalitions with others, what factors contribute to the stability in these coalitions and how
changes in polices and partnerships occur overtime. It further pays attention to actors that
are active to influence other strategies and coalitions in the context of their own beliefs and
ideas. This case study cannot necessarily be generalized to other projects; rather it would
attempt to represent a comprehensive picture of the UWA-FACE project at MENP Uganda
in terms of how the Face foundation tend to form coalition with UWA, how does this
coalition get stabilized and what factors attempt to bring changes in their partnership.
Furthermore, the position of the World Rainforest Movement, with its own beliefs and
ideas, is also described that endeavours to influence the coalition and strategies of the Face
foundation and UWA. This study can be used as a pattern describing how actors in a
specific advocacy coalition under certain international treaty, such as the Kyoto Protocol,
cooperate and how they make their partnership stable over time. Moreover, the scientific
relevance of this study is never denied, as it can contribute to the efforts in understanding
the complexity of policy processes and the actions of various actors that cooperate (or do not
cooperate) in the real world. It takes into account the application of a relevant scientific
theory, the advocacy coalition framework, to an empirical case, which has previously been
applied to many cases in the policy domains other than forest and nature conservation. The
study is obviously relevant to the policies and strategies of the actors involved, hence the
conclusion drawn at the end may also help them in formulating their organizational policies
in the future.
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
26/75
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
CO2 compensation in practice: What makes actors cooperate?? 18
Internal Validity
An idiographic explanation approach has been followed rather than a nomothetic one in
order to ensure the internal validity in this case study. The latter explanation is slightly a
narrower approach that only explains a class of cases rather than developing full picture of
a particular case study. It involves examination of fewer causal factors and a larger number
of cases identifying key factors that contribute to overall cases (De Vaus, 2001). The
idiographic explanation, on the other hand, focuses on particular events, or cases, and seeks
to develop a complete explanation of each case. The research in this case study adopts the
idiographic approach as a full and contextualized understanding of the case is required. To
further ensure the internal validity in this case, both the triangulation of methods and sourcesare also taken into account so as to avoid errors in the data collection. The idiographic
uniqueness of this case is to assess the evolving stability among actors coalitions, e.g. the
Face foundation and UWA on the one hand, while the effects of the certain external events
on their coalition, e.g. challenges posed by WRM, on the other. De Vaus (2001) argues that
by developing a full, well rounded casual account, case studies can achieve high internal
validity, which would be looked for in this case by following the idiographic explanation
approach.
While case studies may achieve excellent internal validity by providing profound
understanding of a case, they have been widely criticized as lacking external validity (De
Vaus, 2001). A profound understanding of a case, argued by De Vaus (2001) provides no
basis for generalization to a wider population beyond that case. A case is just a case and
cannot be representative of a larger universe of cases, as further stated by De Vaus (2001).
This notion is used here to argue about the external validity of this case study, i.e. this
cannot provide statistically valid generalization beyond its own.
3.2 Data collection
Apart from its above explained nature, this case study has retrospective character, which
literally means looking back on, or directed at the past. The retrospective design involves
collecting information to an extended period of time. It basically requires reconstruction of
history of the case to be studied. Due to the reason, it mainly requires the use of archival
records and documents, interviewing people presently working or those who have been
involved in the past in organizations. This design has the obvious problems associated with
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
27/75
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
CO2 compensation in practice: What makes actors cooperate?? 19
the loss of evidence that could help reconstruction of the past in the light of the present.
Furthermore, it may mistake the sequence in which the events occurred. In this case there is
a little choice to count on peoples ability to recall the past while interviewing. The multiplesources of information (triangulation method), however, can reduce the problem. Therefore,
in this research process both primary data such as in-depth-interviews and sources of
secondary data (policy documents, brochures, websites etc) have been used and analyzed
thoroughly.
In accordance to the first research question how the coalition between the Face foundation
and UWA developed the in-depth interviews were conducted from the key personals such
as the present and former directors of the Face foundation and the others identified by them.
Moreover, the key personnel from UWA and IUCN-Uganda were also contacted and were
sent questionnaires/ interviewed as appropriate. The aim was to obtain information from
sources that were involved in the decision making processes of these organizations. The
term key personnel in fact, describes those persons that are/ were involved in the decision
making and in choosing their partners to form their respective advocacy coalitions.
Furthermore, the policy documents of the Face foundation and some of those of UWA
provided good and reliable information regarding their strategies and policies.
The second research question deals with the underlying factors that led to the development
of stable cooperation between the Face foundation and the Uganda Wildlife Authority.
Taking in-depth-interviews from the key personals of the Face foundation and some free
lance consultants that previously worked with the foundation were again the main sources of
information in this regard. Furthermore, analyzing the documentary evidences such as
policy documents, annual reports and project reports as well the questionnaires sent to some
personnel of UWA and the IUCN-Uganda also proved fruitful.
The third and last research question mainly focuses on the WRM report and other external
factors that influenced the stability and induced changes in the partnership and policies of
the Face foundation and the Uganda Wildlife Authority that lasted for years. The main
viewpoint of this research question is to find out how these (or other) factors have
influenced the cooperation and policies of the Face foundation and UWA. The major
sources of information included the reports and press releases from WRM, news reports and
media documentary that caught the public attention. Interviewing the author of the report
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
28/75
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
CO2 compensation in practice: What makes actors cooperate?? 20
funny place to store carbon, the present and former staff and directors of the Face
foundation and some of the policy documents of the Face foundation and UWA were crucial
and provided sufficient information.
3.3 The arrangements prior to data collection
Before the data collection was started, the foremost contact I made with the Face foundation
and the author of the report on behalf of the World Rainforest Movement. This facilitated
the access to the sources of information such as official letters exchanged between the Face
foundation & UWA, their policy documents and reports etc. Furthermore, the support from
the Face foundation and its staff proved to be incredibly helpful in identifying other
respondent that could be important and be interviewed. I therefore paid frequent visits to the
office of the Face foundation based in Utrecht and have been in touch with Martijn Snoep
who knew enough about the UWA-Face project and the persons involved therein during the
past. After getting enough information about the key persons from the Face foundation, I
formulated a list of these respondents (attached as annex-I) and contacted to each of them. I
took appointments from these respondents before hand; hence the interviewing process went
smooth initially. However, some of the respondents had their own engagements and busy
schedules, which rather slowed down the process of data collection.
Interview guide and the questionnaires
After identifying the relevant respondents, I formulated an interview guide (attached as
annex-II) based on the information obtained from the documents reviewed at the office of
the Face foundation. This guide remained useful for the first few interviews; however,
afterwards, I made some necessary changes and updated this guide based on the learning
from the very first interviews. These alterations in the interview guide were useful for the
rest of the interviews.
One of the problems I faced during the process of data collection was accessing some of the
identified respondents as many of them were quite internationally oriented and would travel
abroad very often, others such as staff of the Uganda Wildlife Authority were based outside
the Netherlands. This problem, however, was solved by developing questionnaires (attached
as annex-III and IV) that resembled the questions that be asked during the interviews and
were sent to the appropriate respondents. Though these questionnaires did not entirely come
up with the positive results as those of the interviews because of face to face
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
29/75
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
CO2 compensation in practice: What makes actors cooperate?? 21
conversation, probing and posing new questions to the respondents as they come along the
way this has however, made it possible to include the views of the important respondents
that were identified before starting the process.
Interviewing and transcription
As indicated before that initially the process of interviewing went quite smoothly as the
respondents themselves were more interested in it and cooperated wholeheartedly in this
process of data collection by providing with the information as well their own views.
However, after conducting the very first two interviews, there came a long break of several
weeks in interviewing the rest of the respondents because of their personal official
engagements. For instance, I could not interview the staff, the present and a former director
of the Face foundation. Nevertheless, I tried to compensate this time break by reviewing
new literature regarding qualitative research, transcribing the already held interviews and
sending the questionnaires to the respective respondents. During this period I had been in
constant contact with the respondents and have been trying to arrange new dates for the
interviews. Though this process took a bit longer time than the planned, still I tried to
complete it in an appropriate scientific way.
Triangulation of information
During transcription of the interviews, I have been reviewing some relevant documents to
this case study, where I came across certain questions, which I considered important to
confirm from the respondents in order to ensure the triangulation of information.
Therefore, I re-contacted some of the respondents and asked for the confirmation of the
information I had come across. After this process I proceeded further and started analyzing
the data collected.
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
30/75
22
Chapter 4
The partnership in 1989-1999
The chapter presents the data analysis and describes various events in terms of the period
1989-1999. It encompasses the instances of origin, stabilizing and partnership of Face
foundation with the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA). The events have been described
based on the main findings illustrated followed by interpretations thereof. The next
chapter presents the events that took place in 2000 and beyond. These periods attempt to
highlight what has happened during the past and how it has strengthened the cooperationbetween the two actors or otherwise.
4.1 Events in 1989-1999
Emergence of Face foundation
In 1989 the electricity generation board in the Netherlands, called NV SEP,
commissioned the University of Utrecht to conduct a study on the most efficient ways to
compensate for CO2 emissions. SEP, in fact, had established a 600 MW power station in
the Netherlands operating mainly using fossil fuels. The result of generating electricity
from this power station, of course, inter alia, was the release of CO2. SEP therefore
wanted to partly fix the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. Consequently it
came up with the scheme to commence a body that could carry out forestry projects
fixing the atmospheric CO2. Thus the foundation of FACE or Forests Absorbing Carbon
dioxide Emissions was laid down on October 18, 1990. The aim was to create a long
term stable resource that resemble natural forests and can capture CO2. The purpose of
the Face foundation thus became establishing and maintaining the forest cover around the
world with the prime objective to help mitigating climate change. The commencement of
the climate change debate in the early 1990s, of course, was an interesting but a complex
issue to discuss at time. The Kyoto Protocol adopted in December 1997 at the third
conference of parties was not in place yet, hence nobody had a clearer idea of the
subject. Still the Face foundation had the ambition to do something about mitigating
climate change and soon after its creation, started looking for partners that could joint
hands and help it achieving its goal. The foundation at time also had a strong back up
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
31/75
Chapter 4: The partnership in 1989-1999
CO2 compensation in practice: What makes actors cooperate?? 23
from all the important and prominent Ministries in the Netherlands because its board of
directors contained representatives from the respective ministries such as Ministry of
Housing, Spatial Planning & Environment and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs etc.
Search for project partners
Before starting the projects in the early 1990s, representatives from the Face foundation
visited various countries including the United Nations in USA to sort out peoples
perception about their projects and to explain the details what the foundation intends to
do in the near future. The people from the Face foundation mostly the Director and
deputy director at that time travelled many countries and presented their vision to
various stakeholders. One of the pioneers that took part in founding the Face foundation
said, there were more meetings worldwide at that stage; I remember one in Prague, in
Czech Republic and one in New Delhi, India. (These meetings were carried out because)
no body exactly knew what to do, how we can standardize these projects, everybody
wanted to learn about it. The purpose of these visits was, undoubtedly, looking for
partners that can better understand the foundations goal and contribute to achieve it. At
that point there were two possibilities to find suitable partner(s) for Face foundation, i.e.
either the collaborator had the same objectives as Faces or the cooperation between them
complements to some of their objectives.
Face foundation, however took initiative with its first project (Leeuwarden) in the
Netherlands which was started in January 1991 followed by another one in the Czech
Republic by the end of the year. The same year (1992), it started a project in Ecuador
called Profafor with the local farmers, while in 1993 its collaboration was extended to
Malaysia where the foundation, with its contract partner Innoprise, established
partnership to restore a damaged tropical rainforest in the Sabah state of Malaysia.
Launching the UWA-Face project
The Face foundation, through IUCN-Uganda, got in touch with the Ugandan government
in 1993-94. A former director of Face foundation said when we decided to have a
project in Africa, we contacted IUCN and they gave us a few projects that could be of
interest for us, and we ended up in Uganda. The government of Uganda, in those days,
already had collaboration with IUCN via Mount Elgon Conservation and Development
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
32/75
Chapter 4: The partnership in 1989-1999
CO2 compensation in practice: What makes actors cooperate?? 24
Project (MECDP) in Uganda. The MECDP started in 1988 in which IUCN provided
technical support while financial support was provided by NORAD, Norway. The Face
foundation had communication with the then Chief Technical Advisor (CTA) IUCN and
they finally visited Uganda to assess what kind of project IUCN is doing with UWA. The
former CTA-IUCN mentioned, The management of FACE visited Uganda after some e-
mail correspondence with me After the visit it was agreed between UWA and FACE
Foundation that FACE would fund and organize the large scale reforestation in both
Elgon and Mbale. Apart from development and conservation, the Ugandan government
was interested in restoration of its degraded lands, especially in Kibale and Mount Elgon
National Parks. The Uganda Wildlife Authority-UWA (then called Uganda NationalParks-UNP) showed its interest in the projects Face foundation was promoting to
compensate the atmospheric CO2. Hence Face foundation signed the Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) with the Ugandan government on May 15th, 1994 and entered into
partnership with the Uganda National Parks (UNP) later on called the Uganda Wildlife
Authority (UWA) as it was the responsible authority at that time. Later on, the Face
foundation signed the contract with UWA to carry out two reforestation/ forest
rehabilitation projects in two of the national parks under its managerial control Kibale
and Mount Elgon National Park. These projects were termed as UNP-Face projects
(today called as UWA-Face projects).
Responding to a question regarding how this partnership initiated and what were the
mutual interests of the two collaborators, a former coordinator of the UWA-Face project
said: The national parks had lost their functions under the previous regimes of Idi Amin
and Obote, because the people had fled to the forests; they cut trees and established
agricultural plots and home states there. In the mid 80s when the new government (of
Museveni) came into power, at some point it decided to protect and rehabilitate the
national parks as they had other functions, e.g. income from tourism, water catchment
protection etc. According to the respondent, it was the national policy of the Ugandan
government to re-institute the national parks of the country, which was backed by many,
including IUCN-Uganda by technically supporting the Mount Elgon Conservation and
Development Project (MECDP). Later on it invited the Face foundation to help with
restoration of the park. The current director of Face foundation termed the Mount Elgon
as a hot spot for international conservation organizations. One of the respondents said,
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
33/75
Chapter 4: The partnership in 1989-1999
CO2 compensation in practice: What makes actors cooperate?? 25
The Ugandan government was looking for a partner that could invest in the forest
restoration, and that was Face foundation. IUCN invited Face foundation to get involved.
The Face foundation went there and signed the contract with Uganda Wildlife Authority
(UWA) thats how the collaboration started. It was confirmed by an employee of the
Uganda Wildlife Authority; he mentioned, Recommendation by IUCN for FACE to
partner with UWA in restoration of the degraded areas of Kibale and Mount Elgon
National Parks is one of the factors that helped UWA to establish partnership with
FACE. This shows the importance of the role played by IUCN in bringing together
UWA and Face foundation.It is interesting that IUCN-Uganda had no interest in bringing
the two actors together. However, it did provide technical assistance and suggestions forFace foundation while it was starting the UWA-Face project. I remember that at a
certain moment we (in the project) received from IUCN (for which I was working at that
time in Uganda) a question whether we could advise any activity for the FACE
Foundation. Face at that time was looking for new projects in new countries and was
willing to bring its own funds. Well, as managers for the encroached Mt. Elgon area, I
thought that that would be great to have a self funded project aiming at restoration of the
degraded forests of Elgon said a former employee of IUCN-Uganda. When asked about
the interest of IUCN, he said that I assume it was pure on conservation efforts, nothing
else.
Objectives of UWA and the Face foundation
The Ugandan government had main objectives of conserving wildlife, securing revenue
from tourism, restoring the ecological functions and improving the livelihoods of the
communities therein. The strategy was to achieve partly the objectives by the
development and conservation program of the IUCN while some by inviting Facefoundation to reforest the portion of the park previously degraded due to encroachment.
The policy on strategic partnerships document of UWA revealed that the guiding
principles of its strategies are more centred towards wildlife protection & conservation
and generating revenue for it. UWA had developed 10 strategic program areas of
collaboration, none of which mentioned restoring forest for CO2 compensation which
is the main objective of Face foundation. In this document, it is noticeably mentioned that
UWA had limited funds and it cannot sustain itself, it therefore has to look for partners
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
34/75
Chapter 4: The partnership in 1989-1999
CO2 compensation in practice: What makes actors cooperate?? 26
that can financially assist UWA achieving its objectives, the document states, there exist
partners that are able to contribute to UWAs commitments; such partners have to be
identified to finance the wildlife conservation.
A former employee of the Face foundation said that forests have many functions and the
participants in a forestry project may not have interests in all those functions. It was not
the interest of UWA to sequester carbon, but of course, they liked the idea if they could
do something against the climate change. According to him, though the objectives of
UWA and Face foundation were not exactly the same, they were complementary and
could serve achieving each others goals. For UWA, it was the ecosystem services,
restoration of the park, while for Face it was the carbon finance. Regarding the same
query, the former director of Face foundation stated that the general scope of the project
was to rehabilitate 25.000 ha of the park. We agreed on that. We paid for the activities
agreed in the plan of operation and its implementation. UWA, in return, was obliged to
include these areas in their management plan, and to manage them for a long time
period, 99 years. The Face foundation and UWA play a role that is focused at the
conservation of protected area ecosystem and biodiversity for the benefits of the global
community, stated an employee of UWA; but he further mentioned that Face foundationsupports the restoration of the formerly forested areas with the goal of fixing carbon
(offsets) thus compensating the global CO2 emissions. UWA on the other hand
complements the restoring activity by ensuring that the planted forests are protected for
99 years for the benefits of local, national and global communities world at large.
When a former employee of the IUCN was contacted to ask about the interests/
objectives of both partners from this collaboration, he mentioned, UWA was eager to
have the funded restoration activities while FACE wanted a safe area to invest in forest
restoration.
Non conformities among the two actors
It is observable that Face foundation kept cooperating with its partner as it had to keep
the carbon stored for a longer period and that it invested a huge budget in this project.
When the former director was asked about the interest of UWA in this partnership, he
replied, keep in mind the budget involved was huge for UWA, it was in millions of
Euros. It was more than the total budget of UWA. It was a good reason for UWA to stay
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
35/75
Chapter 4: The partnership in 1989-1999
CO2 compensation in practice: What makes actors cooperate?? 27
friends with its foreign partner. Normally this partnership initially was levelled and all
the activities were being carried out jointly in a smooth way. This is also clear that the
cooperation between UWA and Face foundation was based on a written official
agreement, which had obliged UWA to include the area in its normal management plan
afforested by Face foundation under UWA-Face project. UWA had another obligation of
ensuring to protect these forests. However, after the project was initiated, there were
some minor events that had created confusion among the two partners. A former
employee of the Face foundation, for instance, was asked about any decisions or policies
of UWA that were non conforming to those of the Face foundation, It took quite a while
before a management plan for the park was made, including the Face project, he said.In response to another such question, he said, Once a Chief Warden in Elgon allowed
the people to make use of areas allocated for reforestation, but not yet planned for that
year. This caused a lot of confusion with local people; I guess this was in 1998. Taking
longer time than the normal, UWA finally prepared the management plans but it did not
mention Face foundation as a strategic partner. This was noticed by Face foundation as
its management deemed that this was not in line with what both the partners agreed
before. This, even so, was corrected when the Face foundation communicated with the
UWA directors and the Parks Chief Wardens. However, these were a few meagre non
conformities, later on in the beginning of the next year (2000); there were relatively
major differences in the approaches that amended the entire structure of UWA-Face
project. Some of them even resulted in alteration of the beliefs (i.e. from secondary
aspects to policy cores) of the two partners. This will be discussed in details in the next
period 2000-2008.
4.2 InterpretationFormation of advocacy coalition
The above details elucidate how the Face foundation came into being, started making
coalitions and finally how this coalition became stable (or unstable) overtime. In other
words, this explains the first two expectations put forward in the second chapter.
According to the first expectation, the Face foundation and the Uganda Wildlife
Authority share the same policy core beliefs, hence forms the advocacy coalition. Before
going into further details however, it is important to know how the subsystem has
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
36/75
Chapter 4: The partnership in 1989-1999
CO2 compensation in practice: What makes actors cooperate?? 28
evolved in this case. The Advocacy Coalition Framework argues that the most likely
reason for emergence of a new subsystem is that a group of actors become dissatisfied
enough with the neglect of a particular problem by existing subsystems to form their own
(Sabatier, 1988). In this case however, neither the actors were dissatisfied nor was the
particular problem neglected to create an isolated subsystem. It is rather a part of a set of
the emerging debates that formed the subsystem and in which the NV SEP had already
been taking part by establishing the Face foundation. The foundation, in turn, became
quite active in this subsystem, the climate change, which has got tremendous attention
during the last few decades and resulted in the Kyoto Protocol in December 1997. The
Protocol entered into force on February 16, 2005.
Referring back to the first expectation the illustration pictures that the Face foundation
forms advocacy coalition with UWA. This is evident from the fact that it established two
mega projects in the two Ugandan National Parks that were (and still are) under the
managerial control of UWA. The very first visits of the management of Face foundation
to different countries were the efforts to look for partners that could contribute to achieve
its goal. This approach, the efforts to look for partners, is termed as seeking advocacy
coalition, by ACF. During these meetings while others were not yet clear of thestandards and position of afforestation projects the Ugandan government seemed
interested in the ideas of Face foundation and formed partnership with it. Starting projects
all over the world compensating atmospheric CO2, however, was a challenging
assignment for the newly emerged Face foundation. Its management, therefore, had to be
vigilant in choosing its partners to create, develop and strengthen its coalition. Due to the
reason, internationally known reliable stakeholders, such as IUCN, were also included in
these project promotion meetings. The Face foundations communication with IUCN
demonstrates its trust on it while looking for durable coalition partners. However this is
clear that the main link between Face foundation and UWA was established by a third
party, the IUCN that played a bridging role to bring the two actors together in
partnership and forming the advocacy coalition.
A way to strengthen the advocacy coalitionThe second expectation listed in the second chapter is more intrigued to know how this
partnership or the advocacy coalition became stable. This part of analysis is rather
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
37/75
Chapter 4: The partnership in 1989-1999
CO2 compensation in practice: What makes actors cooperate?? 29
interesting because this expectation was listed assuming that UWA and Face foundation
share the same policy core beliefs. This assumption was based on the seemingly long
term partnership between the two actors. Nevertheless the interviews, the illustration
above and the review of (e.g. policy) documents uncover that Face foundation and UWA
did cooperate with each other. This cooperation however, contrary to the expectation,
was not much stable initially. The reason is the fact that UWA and Face foundation did
not share their policy core beliefs, i.e. they had no common goals and objectives. This
signifies that half of the expectation cooperation between Face foundation and UWA
evolved over time is true. The initiation of cooperation between the two partners was
based on a common activity restoration/ rehabilitation of the parks naturalvegetation but not on the common goal. UWA and the Face foundation had separate
objectives and beliefs at that time; both of them, initially, cooperated to achieve their own
objectives and not the common goal.
Although the preferred objectives of both the partners were not the same, still they shared
one activity, and that was restoration of the parks natural vegetation. This, in fact, was
the only shared policy core belief among the two partners based on which they started
cooperating with each other. Rehabilitation of MENP is a tool or instrument for both theparties, which the ACF describes as a regulation to reach their desired objectives. This
common basis in the policy core beliefs of both the partners, however, was not sufficient
to keep them cooperating for long time. Consequently, at certain stages of their
cooperation, the secondary aspects of their policies switched into theirpolicy corebeliefs
overtime. In fact, this was the main factor that strengthened cooperation between UWA
and Face foundation, hence their advocacy coalition overtime. The specific features of
the secondary aspects of the two actors that switched into policy cores are explained in
the coming section and are explained in table 4.1.
Beliefs of UWA and the Face foundation
Based on the information retrieved from various sources, it is perceived that sustainable
management & conservation of wildlife, and earning revenue from tourism & other
sources lie at the heart of UWAs policies. They are the guiding principles and the basic
normative commitments of Uganda Wildlife Authority, hence, according to ACF, are
included in itspolicy core beliefs. Apart from wildlife conservation and getting revenue,
-
8/14/2019 MSC Thesis_CO2 Compensation in Practice_What Makes Actors Cooperate
38/75
Chapter 4: The partnership in 1989-1999
CO2 compensation in practice: What makes actors cooperate?? 30
the general restoration of the park and ecological functions are also included in the policy
core of UWA. The ACF defines secondary aspects of an actor/ coalition as a set of
narrower beliefs concerning the relative importance of various causal factors in specific
locales and/ or the policy preferences regarding its budgetary allocations. According to
the former condition, CO2 sequestration being relatively less important in specific locality
of MENP because it was degraded in the past and was important to be rehabilitated
first comes under its