Characterising policy responses to complex socio-ecological problems: 60 fire management interventions in Indonesian peatlands

• Published in: Global environmental change 2020-01, Vol.60, p.102027, Article 102027
• Main Authors: Jefferson, Una, Carmenta, Rachel, Daeli, Willy, Phelps, Jacob
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Civil society; Climate change; Decision making; Deforestation; Design; Forest & brush fires; Governance; High risk; Incentives; Intervention; Peatlands; Soil types; Wildfires
• ISSN: 0959-3780; 1872-9495
• DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102027

•Interventions have largely failed to target high-risk time periods and landholders.•Industry has targeted among landholders the most, while government has done so the least.•Government, industry, and civil society have adopted differing intervention strategies.•Government strategies have primarily been regulatory.•Industry has tended to use conditional incentives, and civil society, technical interventions. Governance of complex socio-ecological problems such as climate change, deforestation, and chronic wildfires is becoming “messier”. Theory and case study evidence suggest that “messy” institutional characteristics like non- government involvement and multi-level decision-making can improve social and environmental outcomes. However, these characteristics still lack systematic documentation, and there have been few efforts to systematically characterize and compare the interventions associated with them. We examined 60 fire management interventions (FMI) undertaken between 1999 and 2016 in response to Indonesia’s disastrous peatland fires. We documented their institutional characteristics (i.e., lead sector, multi-level character) and compared their design across institutional types, focusing on design attributes associated with performance such as targeting to high-risk soil types, landholders, and time periods, and the use and design of incentives. We found gaps between scientific recommendations and practice when it came to intervention targeting. However, industry FMI were more likely to employ nuanced targeting among landholders. Government, industry, and civil society adopted differing intervention strategies, including notable differences in the design of incentives. These findings provide the groundwork for research comparing intervention outcomes between institutional types. They also highlight the need for further stock-taking to inform research in these areas.